Trump veers toward the ‘madman theory' while his aides are trying to sound sane
Asked by The Wall Street Journal's editorial board if he would ever use military force to defend Taiwan from China, Trump dismissed the question.
'I wouldn't have to, because he respects me and he knows I'm f***ing crazy,' Trump said, referring to Chinese President Xi Jinping, according to the Journal.
It's hard not to view his shocking proposal for the Gaza Strip through the lens of the 'crazy' bravado Trump is banking on. Trump suggested Tuesday night that the US 'own' and occupy the Gaza Strip, relocate Palestinians to a 'beautiful' place somewhere and create the 'Middle Eastern Riviera,' perhaps with US troops.
Trump's idea is for the US to take on a gargantuan responsibility: It would include pacifying one of the most combustible regions in the world, forcibly remove up to 2 million people — many of whom don't want to leave — and finding a country to put them in. All of the regional players, except Israel, have already rejected the idea, although it will certainly be a topic of conversation when the King of Jordan visits the White House next week.
Many of those who heard Trump's idea immediately thought: 'Is this guy crazy?' And maybe that's the point.
Trump admits to a little craziness in foreign affairs, but the more technical term is the 'madman theory' of foreign policy, coined in reference to President Richard Nixon, who wanted North Vietnam to believe he might use nuclear weapons. It's hard to determine whether this kind of brinksmanship works, however.
Rather than unhinged, Trump seemed very deliberate Tuesday night when he caught the world and the Middle East off guard. It was more 'Modest Proposal' than 'The Madness of King George.' He was reading from a piece of paper when he made the comments, so we know they were intentional. He went on at length during the news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with seeming sincerity.
CNN's White House team reported Wednesday that the idea apparently originated with Trump himself, according to people familiar with the matter, and that it developed over time after he saw images of destruction in Gaza.
You could easily apply Trump's embrace — perhaps deliberate, perhaps accidental — of the 'madman theory' to any number of his foreign policy ideas, including from this past week.
Punitive tariffs on Mexico and Canada? Really? Or was the threat of those tariffs just a precursor to trade talks and a marker that he's serious? The tariffs, for the record, were not applied to Mexico and Canada, at least not for a month, after those countries offered tepid concessions, and the trade war with China is so far relatively muted.
CNN's Jim Sciutto wrote a book, 'The Madman Theory: Trump Takes on the World,' about how Trump arguably employed his unpredictability during his first term, notably during his negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un or his efforts to threaten NATO members. At that time, his advisers actively tried to work against some of his foreign policy ideas, according to Sciutto's reporting.
'Trump's 'madman' has been intended for audiences abroad and at home,' Sciutto wrote. 'He wants to convince Americans as much as foreigners that he's tough. And that perceived toughness is, to him, an end itself, often in spite of damage his approach has done to alliances, or even to the stated goals of Trump's own foreign policy.'
If this is an application of the 'madman' persona, Trump's aides have been left to try to apply some sanity.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained Trump's idea very differently than her boss during an appearance at the White House on Wednesday.
'I can confirm that the president is committed to rebuilding Gaza and to temporarily relocating those who are there because, as I've showed you repeatedly, it is a demolition site,' she said.
Trump very directly said he wouldn't rule out putting American troops into the effort, but to Leavitt, that means he hasn't committed to it, either.
A reporter noted that Trump was elected pushing an 'America First' foreign policy, criticizing foreign entanglements and the use of American troops in the Middle East, so the proposal to 'own' Gaza seems like a reversal. But Leavitt disagreed.
'I would reject the premise of your question that this forces the United States to be entangled in conflicts abroad,' she said.
In her view, Americans elected Trump for 'out of the box' ideas like this one.
Despite Trump's comments refusing to rule out troops and his use of the term 'own' for Gaza, she said this of Trump's proposal:
'That does not mean boots on the ground in Gaza. It does not mean American taxpayers will be funding this effort. It means Donald Trump, who is the best dealmaker on the planet, is going to strike a deal with our partners in the region,' she said.
It would have commanded much less attention if Trump had just said he'd like Egypt and Jordan to accept Palestinian refugees, perhaps on a short-term basis.
Trump stood by his 'plan' on Truth Social Thursday morning, but he also suggested that 'no soldiers by the US would be needed!'
In Rubio's view, Trump 'very generously' offered not to buy or own Gaza, but to do things like 'help with debris removal, help with munitions removal, help with reconstruction, the rebuilding of homes and business and things of this nature so that then people can move back in. But in the meantime, they'll have to live somewhere.'
That sounds more reasonable, but it's not what Trump said. Then again, who's to say what, exactly, he meant or what he'll end up doing?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs would hit Hungary hard despite warm relations with MAGA-friendly Orbán
BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Hungary's populist prime minister has spent years building a close political relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump and aligning himself with the MAGA movement. But despite Viktor Orbán's success in gaining favor with the culturally conservative and nationalist wing of Trump's administration, his country is poised to be among those hard hit by Trump's tariffs against the European Union. Trump earlier this month announced he would levy tariffs of 30% against Mexico and the EU beginning Aug. 1 — a move that could cause massive upheaval between the United States and the 27-member EU, of which Hungary is a member. As a small, export-oriented economy with major automobile, pharmaceutical and wine industries — some of the main categories of products Europe exports to the U.S. — Hungary will be particularly vulnerable to Trump's tariffs. The duties 'would put the Hungarian economy in a very, very difficult situation, because then the entire possibility for Hungary to export to America would be essentially eliminated,' Péter Virovácz, chief analyst at ING Hungary, told The Associated Press. 'Not the best way to make money' Hungary's largest trading partners are other EU countries like Germany, Italy and Romania, as well as China, but many Hungarian companies export their goods across the Atlantic. Outgoing trade to the United States represents around 15% of all Hungarian exports to countries outside the EU. One such enterprise, a Budapest-based company specializing in Hungarian wine, said it will likely cease doing business in the U.S. altogether if the 30% duty is levied on its products. 'If it's really going to be 30%, then there is no more shipment ... We might just call it a day at the end of the year,' said Gábor Bánfalvi, co-owner of Taste Hungary. Bánfalvi's company has been shipping around 10,000 bottles of premium Hungarian wine per year to the U.S. for about half a decade. With a base in Washington D.C., it exports a range of red and white wines to clients in numerous U.S. states including specialty wine shops and bars. Until now, 'it's been a thin profit margin, but it's been fine because we want Hungarian wine to be available' to U.S. consumers, Bánfalvi said. 'Then came 2025," he said. When Trump began imposing tariffs on EU exports earlier this year, the cost of Taste Hungary's shipments tripled, Bánfalvi said — price hikes he had to build into the sticker price of the wine. The imposition of 30% tariffs would make exporting 'unsustainable.' 'You just start to think, why are we doing this? Is it really worth it? It's just not the best way to make money,' he said. In total, the value of EU-U.S. trade in goods and services in 2024 amounted to 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion.) Doubts that political ties could soften the blow Hungary's government, a vocal proponent of Trump's 'patriotic' foreign policy prioritizing national interests, has acknowledged that the tariffs would present a challenge. But, careful not to criticize the Trump administration, it has instead blamed the EU, a frequent target of Orbán's scorn, for failing to reach a comprehensive trade agreement with Washington. Confident that his right-wing populist policies would help win him favor with Trump's administration, Orbán said in an interview in April that while tariffs 'will be a disadvantage,' his government was negotiating 'other economic agreements and issues that will offset them.' But Péter Krekó, director of the Budapest-based Political Capital think tank, expressed doubt that political affinities could play a meaningful role in mitigating damage to Hungary's economy caused by Trump's trade policy. 'The unquestionably good bilateral relations simply cannot compensate for the trade conflicts between the EU and the U.S., and as a consequence, Hungary will suffer the tariffs the same way that the EU will,' Krekó said. 'Mutual nationalisms cannot be coordinated in a way that it is going to be a win-win situation.' Car manufacturing and pharmaceuticals Virovácz, the economist, pointed out that Hungary is home to numerous automobile factories for major automakers like Audi and Mercedes. The manufacturing of cars and motor vehicle parts represents an 'overwhelming majority' of the country's total exports, he said. Pharmaceuticals make up an even larger share of Hungarian exports to the United States — an industry on which Trump this month threatened to impose 200% tariffs. That 'will essentially kill European and thus Hungarian exports to America," Virovácz said. 'It's impossible for tariffs to be levied on EU products but not on Hungarian ones,' he said. 'A theoretical option is that Trump could somehow compensate Hungary because he's on good terms with the Hungarian political leadership, but if that only starts happening now, it's way too late.' Krekó, the political analyst, said Trump's administration 'gives practically nothing for free. If Hungary ... cannot fulfill the interests of the U.S., then I think Hungary is not going to receive gifts.' 'Hungary just doesn't have the cards, to use Trump's terminology,' he added. Justin Spike, The Associated Press 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
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's new model to support Ukraine is a win-win
From the start, Ukraine's defense against Russia's full-scale invasion has been underpinned by a robust commitment from its Western partners. The Biden administration's pledge to support Ukraine 'as long as it takes' promised a sustained flow of military and financial aid directly from Washington. This 'direct donor' model was key to Ukraine's initial resilience, providing essential weaponry from U.S. stockpiles. Biden's approach primarily involved direct transfers from U.S. weapons inventories, prioritizing speed and ensuring that Ukraine received vital equipment quickly to counter Russian aggression. The American government provided extensive amounts of equipment, from air-defense missiles to artillery rounds and armored vehicles, directly to Kyiv. Now, under President Trump, the paradigm is shifting. The U.S. is transitioning from a direct donor to a 'strategic supplier,' where European allies purchase American weapons for Ukraine at their own expense. While this reorientation marks a significant change, it is far from the worst-case scenario for Ukraine. Instead, it represents a pragmatic and potentially more sustainable evolution of transatlantic burden-sharing, securing critical capabilities for Ukraine while invigorating the U.S. defense industrial base and recalibrating the nature of allied support. Support is still 'as long as it takes' but also 'at the others' expense.' This marks a departure from the traditional post-World War II donor-recipient model, particularly within the NATO alliance, towards a more transactional 'America First' approach. Future U.S. engagement in global security will likely be contingent upon tangible economic benefits and direct cost-sharing from allies. Such a shift could lead to a more predictable, albeit less altruistic, framework for security cooperation, where allies are compelled to demonstrate their commitment through direct financial contributions. This policy reorientation accelerates European strategic autonomy. While the immediate effect is Europe paying for U.S. weapons, the long-term implication is a forced impetus for greater European defense integration and self-sufficiency. European nations have already been increasing their defense spending and proactively planning for a future with less guaranteed U.S. aid. This new model, by making U.S. weapons available for purchase, encourages Europe to develop its own robust procurement mechanisms and potentially expand its own defense industrial base. Ukraine's most pressing and enduring need remains robust air defense against Russia's escalating missile and drone attacks. The U.S.-made Patriot air-defense system is critical, as it is one of the few systems capable of intercepting high-speed ballistic missiles. These systems are vital for protecting civilian infrastructure and population centers, which have been subjected to relentless Russian bombardment. A critical strategic reality for Ukraine is that not all American weapons are equally replaceable by European alternatives. While Europe is ramping up its own artillery production, the Patriot system's unique counter-ballistic missile capability makes it a requirement that only the U.S. can provide at scale. Europe, at the same time, has demonstrated a clear willingness and increasing capacity to shoulder a greater share of the burden. The European Union has already provided €165 billion in financial assistance and has launched an €800 billion Defense Readiness Plan. Frozen Russian sovereign assets may be used to finance what Ukraine needs. The shift to a foreign military sales model is explicitly intended to invigorate the U.S. defense industrial base. By integrating 'exportability features' into defense systems during the design phase, the U.S. seeks to advance its competitiveness abroad and potentially lower unit costs for both America and its allies. While the foreign military sales process has historically been slow and plagued by delivery backlogs, the new model offers a potential solution. Consistent, large-scale orders from European allies could provide the long-term contract certainty that the U.S. defense industry requires to invest significantly in surge capacity and overcome challenges. This transforms what was previously a 'drain' on American stockpiles, requiring replenishment at taxpayer expense, into a sustained stimulus for U.S. manufacturing, aligning with 'America First' economic principles. This shift is not merely about burden-sharing; it is about recapitalizing and modernizing the U.S. defense industrial base. While immediate fixes for current shortages remain challenging, this strategic reorientation creates a more sustainable industrial ecosystem. Trump's recent rhetoric marks a notable change from his earlier stance, which often appeared conciliatory toward Vladimir Putin. He has recognized that Russia, not Ukraine, is the core problem in negotiations, even threatening tariffs and sanctions on Russia and its trading partners if a peace deal is not reached within 50 days. The reality that Putin is not amenable to a quick 'deal' is now clear. There is now a crucial political opening for continued support to Ukraine, even if the funding mechanism changes. The narrative that Trump desires Ukraine's fall has been refuted. Instead, Trump is committed to ending the war on terms that align with his administration's interests. This represents a significant psychological advantage for Ukraine, as it lessens the fear of a complete U.S. abandonment.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Columbia to pay $221M to restore funding cut by Trump administration
Columbia University said Wednesday it has agreed to pay the Trump administration $221 million to restore federal funding that was stripped following a probe into antisemitism on the campus. The school, according to the settlement, will pay a $200 million settlement to the federal government over a three-year period and $21 million to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 'This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty,' Acting University President Claire Shipman said in a statement. 'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track,' she added. The interim president said the Trump administration deal will allow the school to maintain its academic independence after losing $400 million in grant funding earlier this year. In June, a judge dismissed a lawsuit led by Columbia's faculty, ruling that only the school had grounds to sue the government for revoking its funds. 'Columbia's longstanding research partnership with the federal government is vital to advancing our nation's progress in key areas of science, technology, and medicine,' Board of Trustees Co-Chairs David Greenwald and Jeh Johnson said in a statement on the matter. 'We are proud of the role we play in advancing this public service and preparing the next generations of students to meet complex challenges around the world,' they added. President Trump announced the agreement on Tuesday night in a Truth Social post celebrating the win for his administration. 'It's a great honor to have been involved, and I want to thank and congratulate Secretary Linda McMahon, and all those who worked with us on this important deal,' he wrote. 'I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right. I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!' He warned earlier in the post that other schools could face similar measures to motivate the erasure of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which the administration has deemed discriminatory. 'Columbia has also committed to ending their ridiculous DEI policies, admitting students based ONLY on MERIT, and protecting the Civil Liberties of their students on campus,' he wrote in the post. 'Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming,' the president added.
