Quick Take
In Foreign Affairs earlier this year I wrote that in anticipating the outcome of the 2024 election, “some foreign governments are increasingly factoring into their relationship with the United States what may come to be known as the ‘Trump put’—delaying choices in the expectation that they will be able to negotiate better deals with Washington a year from now because Trump will effectively establish a floor on how bad things can get for them. Others, by contrast, are beginning to search for what might be called a ‘Trump hedge’—analyzing the ways in which his return will likely leave them with worse options and preparing accordingly.”
In the months to come between now and President-elect Trump’s second inauguration, America’s adversaries and allies may think about cashing out their Trump puts and hedges.
For allies, this may look like envoys from Europe and Asia travelling to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Trump’s team and the man himself to influence the new administration’s agenda. Leaders from Canada and Mexico may try to sketch the terms of a future trade deal with Trump’s trade advisors.
For opportunists and rivals, expect leaders in Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang, and Tehran to sense a window of opportunity in the final months of the Biden administration during which they could take disruptive actions to strengthen their bargaining hand with Trump, who will soon be again America’s negotiator-in-chief.
During his first presidency, President-elect Donald Trump strongly opposed multilateralism, championing an “America First” agenda and withdrawing from institutions such as the Paris Agreement, UNESCO, the WHO, and the UN Human Rights Council. Prior to the recent election, some diplomats voiced concerns about whether a second Trump presidency would deepen this disengagement from multilateral institutions, particularly the UN.
In my research, I find that governments’ efforts to uphold shared norms and standards of the international community often yield reputational benefits abroad. For example, governments that are vocal about other countries’ human rights violations during the UN Universal Periodic Review tend to be viewed more favorably by other international actors. Using survey experiments, I demonstrate that such policy behaviors can increase public support for international cooperation among third-party observers and enhance perceptions of a country’s global status.
If President-elect Trump's policies persist in the coming term, they could undermine the United States’ global image, potentially diminishing its diplomatic leverage and ability to shape political outcomes in ongoing conflicts. However, the international political context in which Trump 2.0 is entering—marked by the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East—is vastly different from his first presidency. These crises may compel greater U.S. engagement in foreign policy and multilateral efforts, presenting an opportunity to rebuild its reputation and reassert leadership.
President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to repeal President Biden’s AI Executive Order, though the broad scope of work performed by federal agencies since President Biden signed the order makes it unlikely that its full impact can be reversed in one stroke. Rather, the incoming Administration will likely prioritize undoing two core aspects of the order: requirements that developers share information with the federal government before releasing advanced AI models and provisions to advance equity and civil rights.
The future of other federal initiatives which followed the enactment of the order remains uncertain. Chief among such initiatives is the future of the U.S. AI Safety Institute, which has received bipartisan support in Congress.
In terms of a proactive agenda for AI, it’s likely that President-elect Trump will prioritize domestic rules and export controls geared toward maintaining the U.S.’s global lead in frontier model development. During his first term in office, President Trump became the first President to sign an executive order about AI, directing agencies to prioritize research and development in the field.
The role that Elon Musk plays in the next Trump Administration could also determine the future of AI policy. Musk leads his own AI company, xAI, and has been a leading voice for AI safety measures, weighing in to support California's proposed SB 1047 earlier this year and recently telling Tucker Carlson that a federal AI regulatory framework is needed to provide transparency into the safety of advanced AI models.
A determined effort should be made in the remaining days of the Biden Administration and by the new Administration to end the war in Gaza and secure the Lebanese-Israeli border under the aegis of UNSC Resolution 1701, which calls for the full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Lebanese territory, the disarmament of armed groups including Hezbollah, and the deployment of the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL forces to southern Lebanon.
As for the central issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is no realistic possibility of addressing it constructively while there is a government in Israel that is not seriously committed to negotiations with the Palestinians to end the occupation and to address the core issues of borders, security arrangements, refugees, and Jerusalem. Equally important, the Palestinian Authority and leadership must be renewed to represent the various Palestinian factions and engage in effective negotiations with the Israelis, preferably toward a Two State Solution. To achieve these objectives there will have to be new elections in both Israel and Palestine which, hopefully, will bring to power political forces on both sides that declare their respective visions of peace going forward and their commitment to pursue negotiations on the end of the conflict. Both Israel and the Palestinians will have to recognize the right of self-determination of each other.
In this context, a new U.S. Administration should engage constructively, working with the international community for Arab-Israeli peace. The alternative is continued resort to force and violence by the parties and threats to global stability. The time has come for statecraft and diplomacy.
The stated intentions of President-elect Trump and his acolytes concerning energy and climate policies are deeply dismaying. Trump has made clear his plans for bigger and more pervasive tariffs, reduced clean-energy tax credits, and elimination of measures that encourage EV sales and offshore wind development. If history is any guide, Trump will also try to put a large crimp in federal research on climate science and advanced clean-energy and end-use-efficiency options.
If carried out, alongside his administration’s likely abandonment of US global commitments on climate-change mitigation at home and assistance on mitigation and adaptation for countries abroad, these policies risk surrendering U.S. government leadership in addressing the global climate-change challenge, slowing progress toward a more climate- and health-friendly U.S. energy system, and sacrificing the job-creation and competitiveness benefits that the ongoing clean-energy transition in this country has been providing.
As in the first Trump administration, his team’s attempted assault on sensible climate and energy policies may be successfully resisted by Congress in some cases, but that is hard to count on after Tuesday’s elections. Of course, also like last time, some of the Trump government’s retreat on these topics will be offset by countervailing actions by state and municipal governments and private businesses, as well as by universities and philanthropies, all working to understand and protect the public’s interest in a competitive, healthy, and sustainable future. But swimming against the tide of a hostile White House will not be easy. Let us hope all who understand the challenge will rise to it.
As the Trump administration returns to power, it faces a series of urgent public health challenges that demand immediate and decisive action. While Trump's first term saw successes like “Operation Warp Speed,” it was also marred by mismanagement during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to unnecessary deaths and a severe erosion of public trust in health institutions. Now, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—a prominent anti-vaccine advocate—potentially influencing health policy under the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda, the stakes are even higher. This administration must tackle not only lingering pandemic impacts, such as Long COVID and a growing mental health crisis, but also emerging threats like the escalating H5N1 avian flu outbreak in the U.S. and a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases like measles, which have surged to over 270 cases just this year.
The Trump administration’s potential rollback of the Affordable Care Act could strip millions of vulnerable Americans, particularly seniors, of access to free vaccines, threatening hard-won progress in preventing diseases we’ve nearly eliminated like polio. Furthermore, Trump's previous withdrawal from global health alliances like the World Health Organization (WHO) raises concerns that he may once again restrict U.S. foreign aid for global health initiatives. Such moves could disrupt—or even reverse—years of progress in controlling infectious diseases both domestically and abroad. In a world where diseases know no borders, weakening our global health partnerships only puts American lives at greater risk.
Looking ahead, Trump’s second term must prioritize strengthening both domestic and global health security. With the rise of more virulent strains of infectious diseases like Clade 1 mpox internationally, H5N1 in U.S. livestock and sporadic cases in humans, and outbreaks of mosquito-borne illnesses like dengue and West Nile virus, a coordinated whole-of-government response is essential. Turning away from evidence-based public health policies in favor of populist rhetoric and science denialism will only deepen existing vulnerabilities, leading to preventable crises that cost lives. Now more than ever, we need competent leadership focused on maintaining public trust, investing in preventive measures, and safeguarding both national and global health security.
Political dynamics between the incoming Trump Administration and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will shape U.S. and European policy on the war in Ukraine in addition to long term challenges beyond the continent. President-elect Trump’s approach to engaging NATO allies will be critical in forging the way ahead.
There is no doubt leaders within the alliance were hedging political bets with their support of former Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte as the new Secretary General this past June. Prime Minister Rutte had a proven track record of successfully engaging then President Trump on behalf of NATO allies to address contentious policy issues from defense spending to intelligence cooperation and support of NATO partners. An early morning phone call from the new Secretary General to congratulate President-elect Trump suggests the positive relationship may continue.
Earlier this year, I published my memoir A Life in the American Century. I concluded with what I called a ray of “guarded optimism.” How does that ray look the day after the 2024 election?
There is little question that the 2024 election was a turning point in American politics, similar perhaps to 1828 and the transition to Jacksonian democracy. It reflects a realignment in American politics, a weakening of the norms and institutional constraints that James Madison celebrated, and a weakening of support for the international alliances and multilateral institutions that America created after 1945.
The question is not whether the election is a turning point, but how sharp a turn it will be. In the near term, there will be sharp changes in economic, social and climate policies, but from a longer term perspective, the country’s institutions may prove resilient. As I wrote in the memoir, “there is a case for pessimism. At the same time, we have survived worse periods in the 1890s, 1930s, and the 1960s.
In the international great power competition, the US will retain its advantages in geography, demography, productivity, and currency. Our soft power may suffer, and our alliances may be somewhat weakened, but we will remain the most powerful. The Roman empire lasted long after it lost its republican form of government. As Benjamin Franklin said to his fellow founders, we have “a republic if you can keep it.” I still have that faint ray of guarded optimism.