President Donald Trump’s foreign policy follows a set of guiding principles that allow for different approaches to differing circumstances, according to faculty in the roundtable discussion “The Trump Doctrine” hosted by Hillsdale College Republicans in the Heritage Room on Thursday, Feb. 5.

The four panelists discussed topics ranging from how longstanding domestic issues affect Trump’s foreign policy to his recent decisions concerning Venezuela and Greenland. 

“Trump’s dealing with the difficulty of a diminished state of domestic capacity,” John Grant, associate professor of politics said. “Our government is not in a great state in terms of people, in terms of what they produce, what they’re willing to sacrifice.”

People nowadays believe in globalism, which is the idea that nations broadly share generally the same aims, according to Grant. 

“It’s a conflation of the interests of the nation which are often actually distinct but taken to be the same,” Grant said. “In our theoretical approach there’s a spaceless universalism, but how is this  supposed to work out when, in real life, it has been ignored for decades?”

From a realist perspective, Grant said it’s right that Trump re-focus on the Western Hemisphere to combat the oppositional forces in the form of growing cartels and Chinese influence.

Paul Rahe, professor of history, also spoke about the domestic challenges which are shaping Trump’s foreign policy.

“We had 30 years of an improvident stewardship,” Rahe said. “We hollowed out our economy so we don’t produce the weapons we need to produce or the medicine we need to produce.”

Instead, the U.S. outsourced its industry to places like China, which resulted in shortages and vulnerabilities during events like Covid, according to Rahe.

“It’s not about economic efficiency and maximizing returns. It’s about protecting your country,” Rahe said. “Tariffs can be something that encourage domestic production of things that are crucial for your defense or for your wellbeing.” 

Semiconductor chips, for example, are made in Taiwan, a region constantly at risk of a Chinese invasion, which could result in restricted U.S. access, according to Rahe. 

“China’s playing a different kind and far more intelligent game than Russia and Iran,” Rahe said. “It has a special strategic culture where you build up so much military power that the other side just can’t fight.” 

According to William P. Harris Chair of Military History Mark Moyar, Trump’s China containment policy mirrors American Cold War attempts to stop the Soviets.

“Supporting countries that oppose China using tariffs and trade deals, critical mineral deals,” Moyar said. “This looks in significant parallel to the Cold War strategy which ended pretty well in terms of containing the Soviet Union.” 

Moyar said he can see the fundamentals of Trump’s policy back in the founding era.

“Tariffs and trade deals to protect domestic industry, this as precedent goes back to Alexander Hamilton and was a main-stay of Republicans until Eisenhower,” Moyar said. “I think they do have some merit, and I do see a certain amount of coherence when it comes to these principles.”

Charles Steele, associate professor of economics, too traced Trump’s governing principles back to the founders. 

“Trump agrees that the American government is for its people, not others,” Steele said. “Foreign intervention, if it serves American interests, can be mutually beneficial for all involved, positive and cooperative.”

Venezuela has long been a staging ground for cartels and terrorists to actively threaten Americans and the country’s interests, according to Steele.

“I don’t consider that to be foreign interventionism to shape other people’s politics,” Steele said. “Totalitarian doctrines change dynamics. I think an outward looking Trump-doctrine makes sense because if the United States doesn’t run things, if it’s China, if it’s Russia, we won’t be able to have our liberty.”

Trump’s intervention is a balancing act — too little and things won’t change, but too much, and it’s another extended conflict, according to Rahe. 

“We saw this in his first term where he tried to get out of Afghanistan and Syria,” Moyar said. “We had the bombing in Iran and intervention is Venezuela, but it is a limited intervention. Clearly they were mindful of the disasters. A cautionary note from history, Barack Obama tried the same thing, but if you don’t have boots on the ground, it generally limits influence. We’ve seen him threaten both Russia and Ukraine, and we’ve gotten a whole lot through some of these threats.”

In the latest situation, Trump threatened the Iranian regime with military action. 

“What Trump will not and should not do is go into Iran with American troops,” Rahe said. “It will be like Iraq, and it’s peripheral in comparison with China and Russia. He has a taste for lightning strikes though — so watch out for that.”

Freshman Marisol Saez said one of the most interesting points was when the professors addressed a question about a potential invasion of Greenland.

“I thought the way they discussed the potential steps Trump could take toward an invasion of Greenland were very interesting because I haven’t heard anything before about a theoretically feasible plan.”

Sophomore Joseph DiPrima, president of the College Republicans, said he appreciated the breadth and depth of each professor’s comments. The event, according to DiPrima, successfully spread College Republicans’ goal to connect the student body with relevant political issues and the wisdom to understand them. 

“Everybody pulled from their field of expertise, but there seemed to be a common theme,” DiPrima said. “The speakers were in agreement, and it was very organized for the audience.”