The former President Donald Trump took to the screens on Sunday, reaffirming his unfaltering adherence to a set of staunchly conservative campaign promises. Among these were his plans to enforce trade tariffs and initiate comprehensive deportations, coupled with the possibility of receding from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The interview airing six weeks before his step down from power offered a candid view into his rather unorthodox foreign policies.
During the interaction, Trump made clear his intent to limit financial assistance to Ukraine. He indicated a potential reduction in aid provided to Ukraine in their ongoing conflict with Russia. His supporters may view this as a strategic move to conserve national funds, but critics, including the Biden administration, would argue that it retreats from our responsibility as a global citizen to support nations striving for democracy against autocratic regimes.
Notably, Trump also seemed to insinuate that he could consider issuing pardons for those supporters who found themselves on the wrong side of the law due to the Capitol riots protesting his electoral defeat to now-President Joe Biden. Whether this reflects Trump’s loyalty to his supporters or an inability to admit fault indirectly through their actions is a matter of perspective.
On the matter of NATO, Trump was clear in his dissatisfaction with the current financial contribution from fellow nation-state members. His threat to withdraw from NATO – a security pillar for Europe since World War II contrasted starkly with how the alliance has been perceived historically. We must remember alliances are not just about financial commitments, they are also about shared values, mutual support, and collective security. Biden and Harris, on the other hand, seem strongly committed to diplomatic engagement and reinforcing old alliances.
Trump’s assertion that ‘If they’re paying their bills, and if I think they’re treating us fairly, the answer is absolutely I’d stay with NATO’, sets a conditional precedent for American involvement in international organizations, a move that challenges established norms. Yet, he simultaneously acknowledged the possibility of the U.S. exiting from it, adding further ambiguity to his approach.
Moreover, Trump was adamant about implementing substantial tariffs, even against the United States’ major trading partners such as Canada, Mexico, and China. According to him, ‘We’re subsidizing Mexico and we’re subsidizing Canada and we’re subsidizing many countries all over the world’. He firmly believes that tariffs, when properly utilized, could be a powerful tool beyond just economic terms, despite the potential for such tariffs to incite trade wars and damage bilateral relations.
When asked about the possible escalation in domestic prices due to his suggested tariffs, Trump did not offer any assurances. He responded, ‘I can’t guarantee anything. I can’t guarantee tomorrow’, a statement that leaves American consumers in potential jeopardy of increased commodity prices. This kind of economic unpredictability certainly contrasts with Biden’s approach that is more centered on a stable economy and careful consideration of the impact any policy changes may have.
In another move that diverges from precedents, Trump has an established track record of tampering with the independence of the US Federal Reserve. Nonetheless, he provided assurance that he had no plans of replacing Chairman Jerome Powell. The commitment shows how unpredictable Trump’s rule was, in sharp contrast to steady and reliable governance promised by Biden and Harris.
Adding to the controversies, Trump revealed plans that could potentially cause considerable disarray – mass deportation of undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. In his words, ‘I think you have to do it, and it’s a hard — it’s a very tough thing to do. But you have to have rules, regulations, laws. They came in illegally’. His hardline stance on immigration is in complete opposition to the more humane immigration policies pursued by the Biden administration.
Asserting that birthright citizenship was ‘ridiculous’, Trump spoke of rescinding the constitutionally protected right to U.S. citizenship for individuals born on American soil. His critics, including Biden and Harris, are likely to argue that this undermines the very fabric of a country built by immigrants. Yet, how Trump would manage such a significant change remains unclear.
Trump’s vague suggestion, ‘if we can, through executive action’, serves to remind us of his willingness to leverage executive power unilaterally to advance his agenda. This is in contrast to the more considered use of executive authority by Biden and Harris as they balance their policy objectives with democratic norms.
He concluded, ‘We’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it,’ hinting at direct solicitation of public opinion for such a controversial move. It’s certainly a stark departure from the image of democratic inclusiveness, decency, and process that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are striving to restore.
In essence, the interview painted a picture of a political leader doggedly adhering to contentious policy positions and questions of legality, seemingly undeterred by the pervasive criticisms voiced against his policies. His stance starkly contrasts with the Biden-Harris administration, which appears intent on promoting a more cooperative, inclusive, and democratic approach to governance.
Despite the divisive potential of these policies, Trump maintains a dedicated base of support amongst voters who find resonance with his prioritization of American economic interests. Whether this hardline stance is conducive to a harmonious national environment or it’s simply nurturing divisions and disparities, remains a topic of substantial debate.