In March, President Trump proposed a new budget to Congress, one that demonstrates his complete lack of foreign policy knowhow and that, if passed, would drastically reorder the nation’s priorities. It is worth noting that the budget’s chance of passing is slim. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in late February, when the outline of the budget was released, that the proposal would be “dead on arrival” in Congress (The Hill). Though comforting, this does not change the fact that our President and his administration constitute a foreign policy nightmare.
The most egregious downfall of the proposal is a 29 percent reduction in the State Department budget, coupled with a 10 percent increase in the Pentagon’s budget (New York Times). Simply, this means that Trump believes that replacing soft power—a term that describes diplomacy, foreign aid, and other civilian aspects of national security—with hard power—coercion through military might or economic sanctions—is a good idea, which it isn’t. In fact, in the present day and age, we need soft power more than ever.
Consider the current situation in Syria. While forces supporting President Assad wage war against rebel forces, ISIS still maintains a looming presence in the region. It is clear that ISIS needs to be stopped, but we can’t do it alone. Counterterrorism is based on trust, and a multilateral approach is the only approach that will work. Scaling down diplomacy and increasing military spending communicates to the rest of the world that we don’t need them, and that America intends to carry out a unilateral plan that will surely fail.
It seems that many of Trump’s supporters believe that they have been short-changed by foreign countries that have taken advantage of the U.S.’s generosity and goodwill. As Senator Mick Mulvaney (R-VA) put it, Trump’s budget is an “America first” budget. This, of course, implies that America hasn’t been putting itself first for the last century. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. ranks 20th out of 28 wealthy democracies in percentage of GDP it devotes to developmental assistance. By contrast, the U.S. spends much more on its military than any other country in the world. This isn’t to say that Trump is completely in the wrong when he implores other countries to “pay their fair share.” However, the U.S. certainly isn’t straining itself to hold up its end either.
Even if America hadn’t been putting itself first as much as it could have been, slashing soft power would still be misguided and morally wrong. The budget demonstrates a woeful lack of empathy in the form of regrettable and unnecessary cuts, such as completely eliminating funding for UN climate change efforts, the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance program, and the Food for Peace program, among numerous others (Council on Foreign Relations). These programs work to combat hunger and disease, clean the environment, and rehabilitate people at risk of persecution and death. Until recently, these aims were consistent with American values. However, it seems that our government no longer stands for compassion and freedom, and this is something that Americans must resist.
There may be some who do not care about being compassionate or empathetic—those people still should not support this budget or the sentiment it symbolizes. It is simply in the U.S.’s best interest to invest in soft power so that we may advance our interests in the developing world and end conflicts that directly affect American citizens. The Foreign Service, not the Pentagon, is key to negotiating directly with foreign governments about these interests. Additionally, bolstering relationships with these countries through foreign aid is not charity—where we withdraw, other world powers such as Russia and China can easily exert influence. So long as the U.S. maintains its firm presence in the international community, it can continue to leverage the goals of supranational organizations to promote peace and prosperity throughout the world, as well as combat pandemics or other potential crises that could endanger U.S. citizens.
The U.S. is not being weak when it lends a helping hand to those in need, nor is it even acting against its interests. Every country needs a healthy balance of hard power and soft power to achieve its goals. In our case, our scale is already heavily tipped towards the former, and we must reject all attempts to worsen this. Greed and indulgence have taken root in the White House, and it is the job of every one of us to weed it out.