China continues to escalate its sharp response to Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan, including the snap suspension of several U.S.-China dialogues.
This all-too-predictable set of actions has been met by U.S. officials as an over-reaction and unnecessarily provocative. They live in some kind of dream world.
Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan was unprecedented in many ways and clearly violated assurances that the United States had given regarding One China at the time of Sino-US normalization. At the time, the U.S. pledged that it would not engage in official contacts with Taiwan, would limit the type and level of officials sent to the island, and acknowledged (and would not challenge) China’s view that Taiwan is a part of China.
The U.S. has been eating away at these pledges for many years now and Pelosi’s trip violated virtually all of them, to no good end.
Beijing is engaged in an effort to alter the status quo regarding Taiwan, as it has done regarding disputes in the South China Sea and the Senkaku Islands. It has entered a new phase of its opposition to the hollowing out of the One China policy in which it will intensify its pressure on Taiwan through a wide array of means that could prompt conflict with the United States.
China’s military actions also seem to presage an effort to put in place a blockade of Taiwan at some point, which is extremely worrisome.
And now Beijing has cut off precisely those channels of communication with Washington that could be used to manage the deepening crisis. This will make the situation even more dangerous. And yet the Biden administration seems intent on repeatedly cranking out a feckless message that Beijing is “overreacting” and has used the visit as a “pretext" to escalate, as if this will have any effect other than to pour more oil on the fire.
The Biden Administration has provided China with this ”pretext” through its gross mishandling of the Pelosi visit. It needs to treat this as the serious crisis that it is, stop the hollow rhetoric, and start taking actions that show that, as it claims, it still supports the One China policy.
Michael D. Swaine is a Senior Research Fellow on East Asia at the Quincy Institute and is one of the most prominent American scholars of Chinese security studies.
People dine near a screen showing news footage of military exercises near Taiwan by the Chinese People's Liberation Army's (PLA) Eastern Theatre Command, at a restaurant in Beijing, China August 5, 2022. REUTERS/Tingshu Wang
An overwhelming majority of voting-age Americans support providing humanitarian and food aid to developing countries, but they are more divided along partisan lines on other forms of U.S. assistance to nations of the Global South, according to new poll results released by the Pew Research Center.
The findings come as the White House last week released a “skinny budget” that proposed a nearly 48% cut to total foreign aid, including a 40% reduction in humanitarian assistance, for next year and signaled its intent to rescind nearly half the current year’s aid budget appropriated by Congress but not yet spent.
If successful, the administration’s plans would amount to a roughly 84% reduction in total U.S. foreign aid. It will now be up to the GOP-dominated Congress to decide whether and how much to approve the administration’s plans.
The new poll found that large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats and independents support providing medical-related and basic human needs aid, such as food and clothing, to people in developing countries. But supporting economic development projects and pro-democracy initiatives garner far less support from Republicans or Republican-leaning Americans than their Democratic counterparts. Under the administration’s proposed budget, those programs would be largely eliminated.
Remarkably, providing weapons and related assistance to foreign militaries receives even less approval from Republicans and Republican-leaning respondents, while a slight majority of their Democratic counterparts are more supportive. Democrats have historically been more skeptical of supporting foreign militaries since World War II than Republicans.
The poll, which was carried out with the participation of 3,605 respondents during the last week of March, also found major partisan differences on the questions of how much the United should engage in problems overseas and to what extent it should take account of the interests of other countries in conducting international relations.
Two thirds of Republican or Republican-leaning respondents agreed with the proposition that “we should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home,” as opposed to “it’s best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs.” Sixty-two percent of Democratic or Democratic-leaning respondents chose the latter statement as best representing their views.
And more than four in Democratic or Democratic-leaning respondents (83%) said Washington should “take into account the interests of other countries, even if it means making compromises with them.” A small majority (52%) or Republicans opted for the alternative proposition: Washington should “follow its own interests even when other countries strongly disagree.”
The survey was conducted after the administration of President Donald Trump and its Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, announced the virtual elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and its transfer to the Department of State.
In early March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio followed up by canceling more than 80 percent of all USAID contracts after finding that they “did not serve (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States.” The administration also moved to eliminate or drastically cut back other aid programs previously administered by the State Department itself, as well as some Congressionally mandated and federally financed non-governmental organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy. Many of these actions have been challenged in court.
Breaking down the numbers
In fiscal 2023, the last year for which statistics are fully available, U.S. foreign aid totaled $71.9 billion, or 1.2% of the total federal budget. That amount was more on average than the previous seven years, primarily due to the amount of monetary support provided to Ukraine ($16.6 billion), then in its second year of war with Russia. Of the total, military aid administered by the State Department – other U.S. military aid is channeled through the Pentagon — came to $8.2 billion, more than half of which was earmarked for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.
Of the remainder, most of which was administered by USAID, $15.6 billion went to disaster relief and other humanitarian aid; $12.1 billion went to the battle against HIV/AIDS and other diseases; $2.3 billion was devoted to democracy and rule-of-law promotion; and $2.9 billion to “multi-sector” programs.
The latest poll results show strong support across both parties for medical and “basic needs” assistance. More than nine in ten Democrats or Democratic-leaning respondents (91%) said they supported providing medical assistance, a position shared by nearly either eight in ten Republican or Republican-leaning counterparts (77%). Taken together, 83% of respondents supported such assistance.
Providing food and clothing registered similar levels of support – 89% among Democrats and Democratic-leaning respondents; 68% on the other side of the aisle. Combined, 78% of respondents said they support aid of this kind.
Other forms of aid revealed much greater partisan differences. On the question of economic development aid, eight in ten Democratic and Democratic-leaning respondents voiced their support, while only 46% of Republicans and those leaning Republican agreed.
Overall, 63% respondents favored providing development assistance. A similar breakdown applied to aid designed to “strengthen democracy.” In that case, 77% of the Democrat side said they supported it, while it had the support of only 45% of Republicans. Under the White House plan, however, those aid categories would be largely eliminated.
On support and aid to foreign militaries, just over half of Democrats and Democratic-leaners (51%) favored such assistance despite their history, particularly beginning in the late- and post-Vietnam era of the 1970s, of promoting legislation to condition such aid on human rights and related considerations. Only three in ten of their Republican or Republican-leaning counterparts favored providing “support and weapons to militaries in other countries.” Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Republicans have generally been more skeptical of U.S. military aid to Kyiv than their colleagues across the aisle.
The poll found the least support (34% overall) for what it called support for “art and cultural activities in other countries.” While a majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning respondents (54%) said they support such initiatives, a mere 15% of Republicans agreed.
The administration’s proposed 2026 budget would roughly cut in half total foreign-aid spending as a percentage of the total federal budget to nearly 0.6%. According to a poll of 1,160 adult respondents conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in early February, solid majorities wanted to maintain or increase U.S. aid for humanitarian relief (56%), economic development (56%), global health (64%), education, the environment (65%), and democracy and human rights (60%) after being informed about those programs and assessing arguments both pro and con for each.
While a majority of Republicans surveyed in that poll favored cutting some programs, less than half of those supported either cutting them “somewhat,” a small percentage (11-20%) favored eliminating them.
“I would say the strongest message from the Pew survey – and the PPC survey – is that Americans of both parties are supportive of humanitarian aid and that there is no indication of a desire for a major reduction,” said Steven Kull, PPC’s long-time director who has polled American attitudes on foreign policy and related subjects for almost four decades. “Interestingly, this is the case even though Americans still grossly overestimate the amount of foreign aid the U.S. actually provides.”
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Bucharest, Romania. 13th Jan, 2025: George Simion (C), the leader of the nationalist Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) lead the rally against the annulment of the presidential elections (LCV/Shutterstock)
The head of Romania’s “sovereigntist” camp, George Simion won Romania’s first round presidential race on Sunday with 41% of the vote in a field of 11 candidates.
Simion leads the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) party, the leading opposition force in parliament. Simion — who as president would have substantial powers in the realm of foreign and security policy — supports Romania’s NATO commitments, but is not an enthusiastic supporter of sending further military aid to Ukraine. His victory could strengthen the dissident camp on this issue within the EU.
This first round result seems to be a decisive rebuke by the electorate of the cancellation of the first-round contest of last November, after the surprise first-place finish of Calin Georgescu, another nationalist-populist candidate. Georgescu, an AUR member until 2022, endorsed Simion, and the two men appeared together throughout the campaign.
Simion seems to have succeeded in winning support from those angered by Georgescu’s disqualification. (The combined tally of votes in November for Georgescu and Simion, who finished fourth, was 37%). Georgescu was barred from running, because his November campaign allegedly benefited from covert financing from Russia, including effective TikTok advertisements.
Simeon’s AUR was founded in 2019 initially advocating linguistic and cultural rights of ethnic Romanians in Moldova and Ukraine, but has broadened its appeal by espousing nationalist-populism and criticism of the EU. Ukraine barred him from entering the country on grounds that he was fomenting discontent within the ethnic Romanian minority (numbering about 150,000) in Ukraine.
In the runoff to be held on May 18, Simeon will face popular Bucharest mayor Nicosur Dan, a pro-EU anti-corruption campaigner who received just under 21% of the first round vote, slightly ahead of the pro-establishment standard-bearer Crin Antonescu. Dan founded the liberal reformist Union for the Salvation of Romania (USR) party which is represented in parliament, but he ran as an independent.
The May election rerun was conducted under stricter controls of campaign financing and monitoring of social media for inauthentic posts. Echoing some of Simion’s campaign rhetoric, Social Democrat Victor Ponta also ran a “Romania First” campaign, winning 13% of the vote. Those voters could give Simion an easy path to victory in the runoff. Simion’s AUR party is in the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) bloc in the European parliament, with the party of Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni and the Polish Law and Justice Party. Simion has called Meloni his political hero.
Romania’s mainstream center right National Liberals and center left Social Democrats govern together in coalition, and are held responsible by much of the electorate for steady population decline, emigration of much of the workforce, lackluster economic performance, and corruption. Simion won 60% of the Romanian diaspora vote. Many rural and traditionalist voters are clearly disaffected and keen to see dramatic change.
Sovereigntists vs Europhiles
The self-described sovereigntist Simion clearly aligned himself with the Trump administration, alleging that Romanian independence and dignity needed to be reasserted. Simeon clearly sought to emulate the model of Trump — and perhaps also Meloni — in his appeal to voters. Nationalist-populist parties in Italy, France and Poland celebrated Simion’s victory.
On May 2, Simion posted on X that the election was not about any one candidate but was instead about “every Romanian who has been lied to, ignored, humiliated, and still has strength to believe and defend our identity and rights.”
Dan has made fighting official corruption the centerpiece of his political career. His success represents a liberal rebuke of the political establishment and in particular the ruling coalition of the center right and center left (National Liberals and Socialists).
NATO and Ukraine
Simion is somewhat more sympathetic toward Ukraine than Georgescu, although unlikely to favor providing further financial or military support. Romania is important to sustaining the economy and war effort in Ukraine. A large share of Ukrainian wheat exports is shipped from Romanian ports, and NATO conducts operations from bases in Romania.
Simion favors following Trump’s lead on Ukraine and not that of those Europeans who vow to support Ukraine’s war effort even as the U.S. reduces or potentially halts its support. For better or worse, Simion has staked his campaign on the popularity of Trump’s administration. He sees continued U.S. support for NATO as essential to the defense of Europe, but recently expressed doubt that Russia poses a threat to Romania or NATO.
Prospects for May 18 runoff
Simion’s performance suggests that the populist right anti-establishment movement has a strong base of domestic support, as do similar parties across Europe, and is not an artifact of foreign meddling. The EU’s leadership likely dreads a Simion victory, which could reinforce the dissident stance of Hungary and Slovakia on the Ukraine war and the resolute stance against Russia. Simion will no doubt play up his affiliation with the slightly more acceptable faces of European populism, such as Meloni and former Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
After the cancellation of last November’s election, the EU gave Romania its long-sought membership in the Schengen group, facilitating free movement within the EU. Rather than foregrounding attitudes toward Russia, the election contest in its first and second rounds pits Trump’s America against the European Union, sovereigntists vs. Europhiles.
Simion goes into the runoff with a strong advantage, especially as Dan, a critic of the status quo, may not get wholehearted support from the mainstream parties. Although inspired by a wave of structural popular discontent, Simion’s continued success depends to some extent on the attractiveness of the U.S. under President Trump to Romania’s nationalist minded voters.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Alex Karp, the Hill & Valley Forum via screen grab/youtube.com/@TheHillandValleyForum
Silicon Valley’s elite traded hoodies for Hill passes last week and planted their flag in Washington.
During a nearly 12-hour marathon Hill and Valley Forum in the Capitol Building, star-studded venture capitalists, defense technologists, and allied policymakers congratulated themselves on the promising start to the military application of artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons in the era of Trump 2.
Jacob Helberg, co-founder of the annual forum and Trump’s pick for under secretary of state for economic growth, energy, and the environment, laid out the success story of Silicon Valley’s David-to-Goliath arc in his opening remarks.
“We have the best leader in the world. President Trump is objectively and truly a sample of one…The stars have aligned. We have the builders, we have the innovators, the policymakers and leaders for a reindustrialization revolution in this country to seize this American moment,” he declared.
Helberg forgot to credit one important group: the lobbyists. During coffee breaks outside the auditorium — where old friends caught up and West Coasters complained about the early start time — attendees explained that lobbyist insiders have been crucial in closing the daylight between would-be skeptics in government and Silicon Valley’s startups.
“It’s no mistake that there’s been an infusion of Silicon Valley acolytes in Washington DC the last 6 months,” said one founder of a venture capital firm invested in defense technology companies. “Silicon Valley is recognizing that lobbying is a key conduit to get things done and sell its message to three letter agencies.”
Venture capitalists are only now beginning to hire lobbyists. Since Trump’s victory in November, Andreessen Horowitz has snapped up contracts with BGR Government Affairs, Cornerstone Government Affairs, and Trump-connected Miller Strategies to advocate on “issues related to AI,” among other items. Other major venture capital firms, such as General Catalyst and Sequoia Capital, registered lobbyists for the first time just last year.
Meanwhile, major defense technology firms such Palantir, Anduril, and Shield AI have doubled down on lobbying efforts in recent years.
Another founder of a defense technology firm told RS that by lobbying up, Silicon Valley is following in the footsteps of the “game” played by prime contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing. “It’s all marketing. It’s about creating a message that sells well,” they said.
And that message is resonating. Trump has signed a series of executive orders that
favor some of Silicon Valley’s longtime stated goals, such as ordering the Pentagon to find commercial solutions rather than custom ones, emphasizing speed over testing, and slashing acquisition regulations. Trump also ordered the creation of a “Golden Dome” missile defense system, with three defense technology heavy hitters — Palantir, Anduril, and Spacex — reportedly eager to cash in.
If the forum was any indication, Silicon Valley is also getting buy-in from Congress. Key lawmakers such as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La) and Senate Armed Services Committee members Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), and Jim Banks (R-Ind.), all made appearances and sung the firms’ praises. “What you’re doing here is so critically important…you always have a welcome mat here at the Capitol. I hope you come by the Speaker’s office when you come individually or with your family, we’ll roll out the red carpet for you,” said Johnson.
Aided by K street’s most high-powered firms, such as Invariant, Cornerstone Government Affairs, Akin Gump, and Brownstein Hyatt, Palantir’s rise in particular has been nothing short of meteoric. An investigation by the Tech Transparency Project
found that Palantir has “hired a slew of well-connected players from Congress and federal agencies, ramped up lobbying activity, and created a foundation to bankroll policy-shaping research, conferences, and public commentary,” all of which is taking place mostly below the radar.
One of the bills that Palantir’s lobbyists worked to
pass was the $14 billion aid package to Israel. It’s not hard to see why; last year, the military software company agreed to a strategic partnership with Israel to supply “advanced technology in support of war-related missions,” and even organized its annual board meeting in Tel Aviv.
Palantir’s full-throated support of Israel has not been without controversy. Palantir CEO Alex Karp was among one of the speakers at the Hill and Valley Forum, but his panel was quickly interrupted by two protestors.
“Your AI technology for Palantir kills Palestinians.” shouted the first protestor from the Capitol Auditorium balcony.
“Mostly terrorists, that’s true,” Karp replied.
“You say mostly, so it’s okay to kill other innocent civilians?” The protestor quipped back, before security escorted her out.
Karp ended his remarks by noting that Silicon Valley firms are no longer the underdogs they used to be. “You're still shooting uphill, but shooting uphill and shooting to Mount Everest while they're dropping grenades on you is a different story,” he said.
As of this writing, the military software company currently has a market capitalization equal to Lockheed Martin and RTX combined. Firms like Palantir and Anduril still have some way to go in competing for top defense contracts, but, backed by an army of K street lobbyists, they might find more and more offices rolling out the red carpet. Grenades will certainly continue to drop — but Palantir and Co. want to be the ones throwing them.
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.