Follow us on social

2019-08-25t201514z_123925765_rc14895bb8e0_rtrmadp_3_g7-summit-scaled

Is this when US global leadership died?

What is distinctive about this moment is that, just as the pandemic is becoming worse than ever for the U.S. itself, it has become clear that Trump has abandoned efforts to control and defeat it.

Analysis | Washington Politics

As COVID-19 rages in the United States, shattering records for new daily infections, an inflection point may have been reached in how the rest of the world views the United States. 

Granted, there already had been much in the first three years of Donald Trump’s presidency to cause dismay among foreigners, including his disdain for international institutions and longstanding international friendships and his disregard for U.S. obligations under international agreements. And much of his earlier response to the current pandemic caused foreign heads to shake and eyes to roll, such as being so obsessive about shifting blame to China that the G-7 could not issue a statement on the coronavirus because of the administration’s insistence on calling it the “Wuhan virus.”

What is distinctive about this moment is that, just as the pandemic is becoming worse than ever for the United States itself, it has become clear that Trump has abandoned efforts to control and defeat it. When leadership at the top is most needed, Trump has checked out — “moved on,” as some observers put it. 

Those daily White House shows that were billed as coronavirus briefings even though Trump used most of the airtime for self-congratulations are a thing of the past. In other words, Trump isn’t even interested any more in pretending to fight the pandemic.

Trump is engaging in political activity that not only disregards efforts of others to fight COVID-19 but pointedly undermines those efforts. This pattern is exemplified by the latest detail to emerge from Trump’s recent rally in Tulsa. His campaign removed stickers that the arena’s management had placed on alternate seats to get attendees to keep their distance from each other. Thus, even though once the rally was under way the arena was only half full, most of the mostly maskless followers were seated elbow-to-elbow on the lower level.

Meanwhile, the vice president of the United States is given the job of going before cameras and speaking about a fantasy world in which the United States has COVID-19 well under control.

Americans have every reason to be thoroughly dismayed by Trump’s posture during this crisis.  As the National Interest’s Jacob Heilbrunn puts it, that posture “is as immoral as it is feckless.”

But worry too about what all this is doing to America’s standing in the world. The European Council on Foreign Relations has just released results of a poll of 11,000 citizens in nine European countries that speaks to this issue.

About two-thirds of the respondents in most of the countries surveyed say their view of the United States has worsened during the pandemic. Only about two percent across the entire survey sample identify the United States as their country’s “greatest ally in the coronavirus crisis” — less than the number who named China.

The authors of the European Council’s report write that these results are not “simply one more indication of how strongly Europeans oppose Trump’s way of doing foreign policy.” Rather, they say, “If Trump’s America struggles so much to help itself, how can it be expected to help anyone else? If this domestic chaos continues, many Europeans could come to see the US as a broken hegemon that cannot be entrusted with the defense of the Western world.”

The COVID-19 pandemic is the first big global crisis within memory in which the United States is not even trying to lead efforts toward finding and implementing a solution. Unlike with, say, climate change or arms control, Trump’s impulse to do the opposite of whatever Barack Obama did cannot be the main explanation for the absence of effort and leadership, given that COVID-19 arose well after Obama’s term ended — although the same impulse would underlie the Trump White House’s apparent ignoring of the detailed pandemic response plan the Obama administration prepared.

An instructive comparison and contrast is with George W. Bush’s response to 9/11 and the resulting burst of public concern about terrorism. Bush’s posture disregarded how European governments had been ahead of the United States on many aspects of counterterrorism, and he launched under the rubric of so-called “war on terror” a disastrous offensive war in Iraq that became a major source of division between the United States and some of its European allies. But Bush did seize the moment and imparted a sense of purpose to his presidency and to the nation and beyond under the theme of fighting terrorism.

A president other than Donald Trump would have seized the current moment and tried to exercise leadership in a similar way in response to COVID-19. Such a president would be sort of an American Jacinda Ardern, scaled up to reflect the size and global clout of the United States rather than New Zealand.

Donald Trump has done nothing like that, mainly because of his solipsistic lack of a sense of public service or public interest. Once he failed to see a way for the pandemic to enhance his ego or his image, he lost any interest in fighting it.  Even tens of thousands of American deaths are not sufficient to kindle such an interest.

Foreign governments and many foreign citizens realize that Trump is not to be equated with America, and for many reasons besides the pandemic they hopefully await regime change in Washington. But they reflect as well on what kind of political system could have put a Trump in the presidency and could put someone similar in it again. Global leadership cannot depend on the vicissitudes of broken domestic politics.


French President Emmanuel Macron, U.S. President Donald Trump, Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pose for a family photo with invited guests during the G7 summit in Biarritz, France, August 25, 2019. Andrew Parsons/Pool via Reuters
Analysis | Washington Politics
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.