Does Donald Trump want to carve up the world — or keep it all for himself?
Foreign policy experts have struggled to make sense of the second Trump administration's incoherent and contradictory approach to world affairs — which in itself ought to serve as a clue. First of all, it suggests that the Trump team is operating without a recognizable or familiar playbook, driven partly by the Great Leader's famous whims and fancies and partly by competing streams of ideology. Secondly, it illustrates that the generations of think-tankers churned out by the graduate programs of elite Anglo-American institutions are completely at sea in this bizarre historical moment, whether in foreign policy or any other supposed discipline of governance.
We've already worked through the theory that Donald Trump is reviving the expansionist foreign policy of Gilded Age America and William McKinley, who isn't just a deeply inappropriate presidential role model for the 2020s but also an inexplicably strange one. (What schoolbook or outdated world map or old-school history teacher of Trump's 1950s childhood is responsible for his McKinley love affair?) That seems partly true, or at least serves to explain Trump's self-destructive fascination with tariffs, along with his obsessive interest in retaking the Panama Canal, purchasing or seizing Greenland and, um, 'annexing' Canada (or something like that).
We have to assume that someone or other, quite likely Stephen Miller — whose title is deputy chief of staff, but by some accounts is making all the policy decisions normally associated with, you know, being president — has gently informed Trump that the Panama and Greenland things would be major international incidents that might derail his otherwise glorious reign, while the Canada thing simply isn't happening at all. So these topics have gradually receded toward the back burner, along with his genuinely horrifying brainstorm about turning Gaza into a beach resort, without disappearing entirely.
It's important to recognize that in world affairs, as in the pettiest of personal concerns, none of Trump's idées fixes ever completely go away. He forced Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to sit through a jovial, not-quite-joking discussion of the Great White North as the 51st state. (Which, I'm sorry, not to be that guy, but that isn't even right. Canada has 10 provinces and three federal territories; aren't we talking about the 51st through 60th states, plus or minus?)
He still wants someone to prove that a deceased Venezuelan president, Italian satellites and the deep-state libs of the FBI stole the 2020 election. (I may not up on the latest theories; my apologies.) He, or more plausibly some eager-to-please groveling toady, actually wants school children to study the so-called evidence of that enormous history-shaping crime, which may involve the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop. I guarantee he's still mad about the Sharpie-hurricane incident.
So let's not pretend that McKinleyist neo-imperialism is gone forever, but for a while there it seemed superseded by an overtly ideological program of right-wing global conquest, which to this point has gone remarkably poorly. This feels more like Elon Musk and JD Vance's collective genius at work than Trump's. Sure, he's flattered by obvious right-wing analogues and imitators like Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Javier Milei in Argentina, but he thinks of his relationships with other leaders almost entirely in individual and transactional terms.
Ideology, for Trump, is nothing more than the sales pitch, or the decoration on top of the cake; it's not the 'deal,' by which he means a bunch of pomp and circumstance, ending with someone else's obsequious surrender and shameless flattery. He was over the moon about meeting Kim Jong-un during his first term, and no doubt still thinks that went well. He transparently believes he'd have gotten along smashingly with Hitler and Stalin, and it's a shame he wasn't around to help defuse World War II and the Cold War.
Of course Trump would have happily taken credit for supporting the far-right AfD in Germany or the right-wing parties and candidates in Canada, Australia, Romania and Poland — if any of them had won. (To be clear, Poland's presidential election still hangs in the balance, with the final round of voting this weekend.) But at least so far, exported Trumpism has encountered high electoral tariffs across the liberal-democratic zone, delivering an unexpected and arguably unmerited booster shot to mainstream 'centrist' parties — with the solitary and instructive exception (as I recently observed) of Britain, where the political climate has gone from pretty bad to a whole lot worse.
Electoral democracy isn't really Trump's bag anyway, given the unacceptably high risk of losing. (I recognize the potentially terrifying subtext of that sentence.) He leaves that stuff to the nerds, which brings us to his recent tour through plutocratic oil states of the Middle East and his well-attested preference for leaders who don't need to worry about that nonsense. In Saudi Arabia, now run by the youthful modernizer (and journalist-dismemberer) Mohammad bin Salman, Trump delivered a speech proclaiming that under his aegis the U.S. was no longer interested in looking 'into the souls of foreign leaders' and dispensing justice based on their perceived morality.
That Teleprompter-ready rhetoric doesn't remotely resemble anything our president would say in a more natural context, but never mind. The point was taken: We're done pretending to care about human rights and democracy and all that airy-fairy woke stuff from the Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution! We're here to do some blatantly underhanded business deals and take an outdated gas-guzzling 747 off your hands.
With this, we saw the launch of a new theory-balloon within the foreign-policy establishment: Trump is bringing back 'spheres of influence' as a guiding principle in world affairs, and those who bend the knee to America — or to him, which is the same thing — get to run their own s**thole countries however they like.
As with the McKinley business, my verdict is: Sure, sort of. It's certainly conceivable that Trump has encountered some nostalgic-heroic retelling of the 'Great Game' of the 19th century, when the British and French empires sought to carve up the underdeveloped nations between them, and then Germany, Belgium, Italy, Russia and Austria-Hungary got into the act. (McKinley's clumsy territorial grabs can be understood as America getting into the poker game a few sessions late.) He clearly would neither know nor care that, considered as a whole, that diabolical contest probably produced the greatest set of crimes in human history, or that the migrant 'crisis' now afflicting every major Western-style democracy amounts to its long-tail karmic blowback.Trump has a distinct fondness for exotic and fanciful narratives, and God knows the colonial-imperial period offered plenty of those. No doubt he'd find a hypothetical Second Great Game thrilling, on the level of pure fantasy: He may imagine Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and himself meeting over brandy and cigars at (let's say) the Schönbrunn Palace and congratulating each other for being great men of history who get to make great-man decisions about who owns what. Except that Trump doesn't take brandy or cigars — which ruins the whole fantasy, honestly — and Putin and Xi know better, at this point, than to take Trump seriously.
There are a number of potentially fatal problems with this dusted-off 19th-century throwback, as studiously laid out by Sarang Shidore of the Quincy Institute in a lengthy essay for Foreign Policy. I would summarize them this way: LOL this is Trump we're talking about; never in a million years. Yet it's also true that the 'spheres of influence' model has a perverse appeal that goes well beyond aspiring dictators into various quarters on the left: It recognizes that we live in a multipolar world, and strikes many international observers as less hypocritical than the 'rules-based order' so piously advocated by former Secretary of State Tony Blinken, which amounted to old-school U.S. hegemony dressed up in contemporary drag.
Although the Biden administration 'occasionally gave a rhetorical nod to multipolarity,' Shidore writes,
its policies on the ground were to maintain U.S. domination globally and in all dimensions of power: military, economic, and institutional. The new administration's clearer acknowledgement of multipolarity is a promising beginning to reforming U.S. foreign policy.
In the first weeks of Trump's second term, you could see the vague outlines of a 'spheres of influence' policy shaping up: He'd let Russia keep as much Ukrainian territory as it could conquer, and was manifestly unbothered by the prospect of China invading Taiwan. All he wanted in return was Canada!
One can almost imagine a more clear-headed and ruthless version of Trump who sticks to that kind of hardcore realpolitik and gets away with it. I said 'almost.' Trump's iron grip on the Republican Party is a function of his irrationality, his limitless egotism and his mercurial whims. Those same ingredients make him utterly ineffectual as a world leader.
His efforts to extort some kind of 'peace deal' from Putin — which Trump repeatedly claimed he could accomplish in 24 hours — have descended to online pouting and whining. ("Vladimir, STOP!" is not exactly Great Game material.) His exhausting trade war with China has accomplished nothing, except to convince Xi's unappetizing but highly rational regime that negotiating with this dude is pointless. For the moment, Trump has been shoved halfway back into the arms of Republican chickenhawks, the enfeebled tools of the military-industrial complex who no doubt suspected this would happen all along. I honestly can't tell you whether that's better or worse: Pick your poison.
Thing is, if you want to carve up the world into competing zones controlled by 'great powers,' you need other great powers who want to carve it up with you, and you need a world full of smaller countries who are willing to go along or too weak to resist. Those things do not exist in 2025, and thank Christ for small mercies. Oh, and by the way: You also need to be a great power. I suppose the U.S. still technically qualifies, but not for much longer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Uncertain' 2025, M&A Deadlock Freeze $1 Trillion in PE Assets
The word of the year on Wall Street, without a doubt, has been uncertainty. It's the catch-all to describe everything from the fog of trade to nonstop geopolitical tensions. The inherent uncertainty of uncertainty also makes it hard to put a price tag on its impact, but last week, accounting firm PwC offered up a number: $1 trillion. That's the value of unsold assets that would have been returned to investors if it weren't for private equity groups holding on to them while remaining in an uncertainty-driven holding pattern. READ ALSO: Amazon's Driverless Cab Company Zoox Revs Up 'Toaster Taxis' and Cybersecurity Giant Palo Alto Networks Caught Between Opportunity and Maturity With New Year's fireworks in January, Wall Street was full of hope for an M&A boom driven by an incoming Trump administration with deregulation at the heart of its agenda — and lighter scrutiny from regulators when rules come into play. You know the deal: President Trump has focused on other priorities to start his second term, and the resulting market limbo has put deals on hold. According to PwC analysts, plans for initial public offerings (IPOs) of companies worth a combined $120 billion were shelved in the first three weeks of April. The Federal Reserve's decision to hold off on rate cuts to wait for the potential impacts of tariffs has had a resulting domino effect: a lack of cheap debt, as higher interest rates make debt more expensive. PwC noted that 30% of the $3 trillion that private equity firms have invested in roughly 30,000 companies has been held for more than five years, an unusually long period compared with the typical timetable for PE shops to turn a profit on an investment. This, they surmised, is in part because they have been less able to finance growing companies without cheap debt. 'In a typical M&A cycle, $1 trillion would have already been put back into the market,' Josh Smigel, a PwC partner, said on a media call. The data, meanwhile, looks like a set of spinning wheels: Deal volume and value have been more or less flat year-over-year, PwC said, with roughly 4,500 deals worth a total of $567 billion through May. In response to PwC's May Pulse Survey, 30% of respondents said they have paused or revisited deals because of tariff concerns, which would delay investor returns. 'While nearly half (48%) of the business executives surveyed expect today's uncertainty to last less than a year, many anticipate it could extend through the next presidential election,' reads the report. Change Your Mind? With the possibility that the worst of the tariff warring is over, May data provides a more optimistic scenario. The number of deals worth more than $100 million climbed 6.1% from April, according to an EY-Parthenon analysis of Dealogic data, though overall deal volume fell 6.2% from May 2024. This post first appeared on The Daily Upside. To receive delivering razor sharp analysis and perspective on all things finance, economics, and markets, subscribe to our free The Daily Upside newsletter. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Social Security Benefits Are an Estimated 8 Years Away From Being Slashed -- and the Cuts Are Even Bigger Than Initially Forecast
Most retirees rely on their Social Security income, to some varied degree, to make ends meet. The 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report is calling for an even steeper reduction to retired-worker and survivor benefits come 2033 than was forecast last year. Ongoing demographic shifts are (mostly) responsible for Social Security's financial woes. However, the longer Congress waits to implement reforms, the costlier it'll be on working Americans. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security represents more than just a monthly check for most retirees. To many, it's a financial lifeline that surveys and studies have shown they'd struggle to make do without. For 23 consecutive years, national pollster Gallup surveyed retirees to determine how important their Social Security income was to covering their expenses. Every year, no fewer than 80% of respondents noted it was necessary, in some capacity, to cover their costs. A separate analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Social Security pulled 22 million people above the federal poverty line in 2023, including 16.3 million adults aged 65 and above. If the Social Security program didn't exist, the poverty rate for this group would be nearly four times higher (37.3%, estimated) than it was in 2023 (10.1%). For lawmakers, ensuring the financial health of Social Security should be of paramount importance. But based on the latest Social Security Board of Trustees Report, America's leading retirement program is on anything but stable ground. In January 1940, the Social Security program doled out its very first retired-worker benefit. Since then, the Social Security Board of Trustees has published an annual report intricately detailing how the program generates income, as well as where every dollar in outlays ends up. But what tends to garner even more attention is the Trustees' forecasts of what's to come for Social Security. Specifically, the short- (10-year) and long-term (75-year) projections, which are regularly updated to reflect fiscal policy changes, monetary policy shifts, and an assortment of demographic adjustments. Last week, the 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report was released -- and it contained some rather chilling news for current and future retirees. To begin with, the program's long-term unfunded obligation continues to widen. Every annual report since 1985 has pointed to a 75-year funding deficit between projected income to be collected and forecast outlays, which includes annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). In present-day dollars, discounted to Jan. 1, 2025, this 75-year deficit stood at a staggering $25.1 trillion. However, the more worrisome news is the short-term forecast for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund (OASI). This is the fund responsible for doling out monthly benefits to retired workers and survivors of deceased beneficiaries. Beginning in 2021, the OASI began outlaying more in benefits than was being collected in income. This outflow from the OASI's asset reserves is expected to grow with each passing year. By 2033, the OASI's asset reserves are projected to be completely exhausted. Before going any further, let's make clear that the OASI doesn't need a penny in asset reserves to remain solvent and continue to pay benefits to eligible recipients. With the lion's share of Social Security income collected from the 12.4% payroll tax on wages and salary, there will always be income to disburse to qualified beneficiaries. But if the OASI's asset reserves are depleted in eight years, as the latest Trustees Report predicts, the current payout schedule, inclusive of COLAs, won't be sustainable. The Trustees are forecasting a 23% cut to payouts may be necessary for retired workers and survivor beneficiaries by 2033 -- this is up from an estimated 21% cut outlined in the 2024 Trustees Report -- to sustain monthly benefits without the need for any further reductions through 2099. With Social Security providing a financial foundation to retirees for more than eight decades, the obvious question for current and future retirees is simple: How did Social Security get into this mess? What can be said with certainty is that "congressional theft" and "undocumented migrants receiving traditional Social Security benefits," which are two common myths/scapegoats mentioned by some people online, are the wrong answers. Rather, Social Security's worsening financial outlook is a function of numerous ongoing demographic shifts, as well as inaction on Capitol Hill. Some of these shifts are well-documented and understood by the public. For example, baby boomers reaching retirement age and leaving the workforce in larger numbers are weighing down the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. Likewise, people are living longer today than they were when Social Security initially began paying retired-worker benefits in 1940. To be somewhat blunt, the program wasn't designed to dish out payments to retirees for two or more decades, as is somewhat commonplace today. But a number of these demographic shifts aren't nearly as visible -- nevertheless, they're playing a key role in weakening the program. For starters, the U.S. fertility rate (i.e., hypothetical lifetime births per woman) hit an all-time low in 2023. A laundry list of factors, ranging from people waiting longer to get married and have children, to concerns about the health of the U.S. economy, have reduced the number of children being born and will, eventually, weigh down the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. Rising income inequality is another issue for Social Security. Based on data from the Social Security Administration, approximately 90% of all earned income (wages and salary, but not investment income) was subject to the 12.4% payroll tax in 1983. By 2023, only 83% of earned income was subject to this program-funding tax. In simple terms, the wages and salaries for high earners have been increasing at a faster pace than the National Average Wage Index, which determines the upper range of earned income exposed to the payroll tax. In short, more earned income is escaping the payroll tax as time passes. Insufficient net migration into the U.S. has been problematic, too. Social Security relies on younger people migrating to the U.S. and contributing to the program for decades via the payroll tax before earning a retirement benefit for themselves one day. Since 1997, the net migration rate into the U.S. has dropped off dramatically. The final culprit is the aforementioned lack of action by lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Although plenty of bills have been proposed, the cavernous ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill as to how best to strengthen Social Security has led to an ongoing stalemate. If there's a silver lining here, it's that lawmakers do have a knack for coming to Social Security's rescue in the 11th hour. But the longer Congress waits to tackle this issue, the costlier it's going to be on working Americans to fix. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Benefits Are an Estimated 8 Years Away From Being Slashed -- and the Cuts Are Even Bigger Than Initially Forecast was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
3 Reasons Bitcoin's Momentum Could Continue Into 2026 and Beyond
High-level support from the Trump administration is generating new momentum around Bitcoin. Inspired by the success of Strategy (MicroStrategy), new Bitcoin Treasury companies are emerging as major buyers of Bitcoin. Thanks to the launch of the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, sovereign governments around the world now have a template for buying Bitcoin. 10 stocks we like better than Bitcoin › For the year, Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) might only be up 13%. But let's put this into context: Almost all of the world's top cryptocurrencies are down double-digits this year, and Bitcoin has clearly broken away from the pack. If you're thinking about investing in Bitcoin, the good news is that this momentum is likely to continue into 2026. Here are three reasons why. The most obvious reason, of course, is high-profile support from the Trump administration. President Donald Trump came into office this year promising a pro-crypto agenda, and he has delivered just that. The big move came in March, when he announced the creation of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. Currently, the big focus is on blockbuster new crypto legislation that will further legitimize the role of crypto within the U.S. economy. New stablecoin legislation is likely to be signed by the end of this summer. Next up will be broad crypto market reform legislation. This, too, could be ready by the time of the congressional recess in August. Bitcoin is already going mainstream, and bipartisan support in Washington, D.C. is only going to make it easier for banks, corporations, and institutional investors to buy and hold crypto. In theory, this means that Bitcoin could continue to increase in value from now until 2028. The next major factor is the emergence of Bitcoin treasury companies. Ever since Strategy announced it was transforming into a Bitcoin treasury company in February, a slew of copycats have followed. Everyone, it seems, is buying Bitcoin this year. And when I say "everyone," I mean everyone. Medical device companies are buying Bitcoin. Media companies are buying Bitcoin. Luxury watchmaker companies are buying Bitcoin. At the same time, investors are using every form of financial alchemy possible -- from reverse mergers to special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) -- to create new companies that do nothing but buy Bitcoin. On the surface, this might just seem like the trendy thing to do: buy Bitcoin because everyone else is buying Bitcoin. But, as they say, always follow the money. And the money trail leads directly to FASB ASU 2023-8. This is a rather arcane accounting rule from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) dating back to December 2023 that enables companies to mark to market the crypto assets they hold on their balance sheets. The rule went into effect in December 2024, so we're seeing the impact in 2025. Previously, companies were only able to mark to market their crypto holdings if they were selling these assets. Unless you're an accountant, this might not seem like a big deal, until you realize the potential impact that it has on shareholder value. If Bitcoin is soaring in value, this means your company -- if it chooses to buy and hold Bitcoin -- will also be soaring in value. At the beginning of the year, for example, Tesla was able to post $600 million in gains, simply due to the Bitcoin it was carrying on its balance sheet. Thus far, sovereign governments have been relatively quiet when it comes to Bitcoin. But this is likely to change very soon. Last year, many people expected sovereign wealth funds to lead the way. But in 2025 and beyond, it looks like strategic Bitcoin reserves will lead the way forward. In order to keep up with the United States, a number of governments around the world have already announced intentions to launch strategic Bitcoin reserves of their own. The most high-profile of these is Brazil. And, within the United States, three U.S. states have already approved the creation of strategic Bitcoin reserves of their own, with many more on the way. The big question, of course, is how much Bitcoin these strategic reserves are going to acquire. According to Michael Saylor, founder and executive chairman of Strategy, the U.S. government should plan to acquire 20% of the world's total Bitcoin supply. That's a lot of Bitcoin. Obviously, this type of buying pressure is only going to push Bitcoin higher. Based on the above, it's pretty easy to put together an informal calendar for what happens next in 2025 and 2026. This summer, look for new crypto legislation to be signed into law. In the fall, look for a major corporation -- most likely, a Silicon Valley tech behemoth -- to announce plans to add Bitcoin to its balance sheet. And, this winter, look for signs of an impending "Bitcoin arms race," as nations around the world compete to buy as much Bitcoin as possible. As a Bitcoin investor, it will be fun to sit back and watch. Yes, Bitcoin might seem to be priced into the stratosphere right now. But just wait a few years, and a small investment in Bitcoin now might turn out to be the best investment you ever make. Before you buy stock in Bitcoin, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Bitcoin wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $664,089!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $881,731!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 994% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Dominic Basulto has positions in Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin and Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 3 Reasons Bitcoin's Momentum Could Continue Into 2026 and Beyond was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
