Aspen forum attendees admit there's no return to a pre-Trump world order
Given the administration's limited presence, attendees were forced to wrestle with how to address the president's many changes to foreign policy amongst themselves. The main approach at the conference seemed to be to at least avoid antagonizing team Trump.
Much praise was offered for Trump's recent expressions of support for Ukraine and the success of U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in deteriorating Tehran's nuclear capabilities.
And Trump's overhaul of federal agencies and departments was met with resignation and even some optimism. In informal conversations, there was recognition from some attendees that the State Department was overdue for reform to cut through decades of bureaucracy. The main protest was about the manner in which the cuts were being made.
'They all need reform,' said a former U.S. diplomat who attended the forum of USAID and State. 'There are a lot of challenges with how the bureaucracy is set up, and part of it is because of congressional demands. But this isn't reform. This is just dismantling and shutting down government bodies … and poor treatment of federal workers.'
The former diplomat, like others cited, was granted anonymity to speak freely about the conference.
Panelists and attendees also embraced the need to rethink the way that the U.S. offers foreign assistance. In one session discussing the future of foreign aid, panelists agreed that the Trump administration's pursuit of access to critical minerals in Africa's Great Lakes region represents an opportunity for alliances with countries that China has looked to court in recent years.
'There are a number of questions that rightfully should be asked, but I wouldn't condemn it outrightly. I think there is an opportunity to be had going down the line,' Comfort Ero, who leads the International Crisis Group think tank, told the audience.
Especially on economic questions, attendees and panelists were quick to note that the protectionist tendencies Trump embraces are gaining adherents across the U.S. ideological spectrum.
'It's a big deal that you've now had two presidents of two different parties take a protectionist line,' former U.S. Trade Representative and World Bank Group President Robert Zoellick, said on one panel. 'That is a very big switch in the nature of trade politics.'
Some attendees expressed frustration at what they saw as pandering to Trump, saying there was a missing opportunity to have more discussion on the main stage about the potential impacts of Trump's policies and governing style on U.S. democratic institutions and institutions around the world.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Forbes
Cut 'Em Loose With No Government Props
(CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images) CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images The Trump Administration is seriously considering privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's long past time that it did this. The business of these two giants is to bundle and sell mortgages to investors with a government guarantee. That is, investors are covered if there are losses because of homeowner defaults. Washington, via the Federal Housing Finance Agency, took control of both entities in 2008 because of their massive losses. The seizures were called 'conservatorships.' The takeover was supposed to be temporary, yet here we are nearly a generation later, and the conservatorships are still intact. Fannie and Freddie are the elephants in the housing market, backing some $7 trillion in mortgages. They have an eye-popping line of credit with the Treasury Department of $254 billion. They charge a so-called guarantee fee of around two-thirds of 1% on each mortgage. Fannie tends to work with larger financial institutions, while Freddie goes with smaller ones. It's a nice business. As President Trump noted, they are gushing cash. Trumpites estimate the market cap of these two monsters would be $330 billion, with the government's share coming to more than $250 billion. In these times of rivers of red ink in Washington, the prospect of getting that much cash without raising taxes should be irresistible. The two got into trouble because they went heavily into debt. Why not, they figured. The higher the leverage, the bigger the profits, which shareholders loved. They could borrow at rock-bottom interest rates because there was an implicit government guarantee. It wasn't written into law, but the markets figured Uncle Sam would come to the rescue if there were trouble. That ar-rived with the financial crisis that began in 2007, when the housing market was imploding. Washington stepped in. But shareholders were largely wiped out. What made the two particularly complacent was their extraordinary political muscle, especially Fannie Mae's. They made sure every member of Congress learned how important they were to constituents involved in local housing markets. And jobs were to be had for congressional relatives and friends. The challenges of pushing Fannie and Freddie out of the Washington nest are real, but that shouldn't deter the move. Critics say changing the status quo will raise mortgage rates, a particularly sensitive topic at a time when housing affordability is a big issue. If Fannie and Freddie are to be truly private companies, they'll need higher profits, which could lead to more expensive mortgages. Guarantee fees for mortgages would also likely go up. This is why the Trump Administration doesn't want to do away with guarantees, implicit or explicit. But this would put Fannie and Freddie back where they were when they got in trouble. If there are any guarantees, the two monsters should have to pay Uncle Sam realistic insurance fees, which would run into the tens of billions of dollars. Critics underestimate the power of competition. Instead, the two enterprises should be broken up. Competition works. As for mortgage rates, the problem is the Federal Reserve, whose ignorance of inflation is keeping the cost ofmoney unnecessarily high.
Bloomberg
26 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Canada Talks Up Pension Funds' Financial Muscle as Lever in US Trade Talks
Canada's major pension funds could boost their investments in the US, a top Canadian cabinet minister said, as the country looks to negotiate a trade agreement with the Trump administration. Dominic LeBlanc, the minister responsible for US trade, is in Washington for talks with US lawmakers. He brought up Canada's pension funds when asked if President Donald Trump will seek a specific pledge for more investment into the US.
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
Could the Supreme Court revisit marriage equality? New appeal offers chance
Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, wants the high court to overturn that decision. WASHINGTON – A former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2015 because of her religious beliefs is hoping the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority wants to scrap the court's 10-year-old decision extending marriage rights to LGBTQ+ couples. Kim Davis asked the court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges in an appeal filed on July 24 about the compensation she was ordered to pay a couple after denying them a marriage license. Mat Staver, head of Liberty Counsel, the conservative legal group representing Davis, said that decision threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. "The High Court now has the opportunity to finally overturn this egregious opinion from 2015," Staver said in a statement. More: He was at the center of a Supreme Court case that changed gay marriage. Now, he's worried. Mary Bonauto, a senior director with GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, said Davis' legal team is trying to shoehorn an opportunity to relitigate Obergefell into a narrow legal question of whether the former clerk should have to pay damages. "There's good reason for the Supreme Court to deny review in this case rather than unsettle something so positive for couples, children, families, and the larger society as marriage equality," Bonauto said in an emailed response. Davis attracted international attention when she refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, landing her in jail on a contempt of court charge for five days. When Davis was sued by David Ermold and David Moore, she argued legal protections for public officials prevented the challenge. Lower courts let the suit proceed and the Supreme Court in 2020 declined to intervene. More: Southern Baptists vote to seek repeal of historic same-sex marriage ruling Justice Clarence Thomas wrote at the time that while Davis' case was a "stark reminder" of the consequences of Obergefell, it didn't "cleanly present" questions about that decision. After the district court ruled against Davis, she was ordered to pay $100,000 in damages to the couple and $260,000 for their attorneys fees and expenses. Her appeal to the Supreme Court opens with comments made by the dissenting justices in the 5-4 decision issued 10 years ago. Since then, the court's makeup has changed to a 6-3 conservative supermajority. Opinion: I was the named 'opposition' in Obergefell v. Hodges. I've never been happier to lose. Still, Carl Esbeck, an expert on religious liberty at the University of Missouri School of Law, said there's "not a chance" the court is going to overturn Obergefell. That's in part because Congress passed a law in 2022 guaranteeing federal recognition of same-sex marriage rights, he said. "It would be a useless act to overturn Obergefell," Esbeck said. "The politics have simply moved on from same-sex marriage, even for conservative religious people." Geoffrey R. Stone, who teaches law at the University of Chicago, agreed the court is unlikely to scrap Obergefell despite its willingness in recent years to overturn precedents on abortion and affirmative action. While a majority of the current justices may disagree with Obergefell, the decision is generally approved by the public, he said. "For that reason, and to avoid the appearance of interpreting the Constitution in a manner that conforms to their own personal views," Stone said in an emailed response, "even some of the conservative justices might not vote to overrule Obergefell."
