The silver lining of Trump’s harsh policies

The verbal brawl with Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House last Friday was extreme in the annals of diplomacy. US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance took turns excoriating the Ukrainian president, who did not hold back either. The public display was probably unprecedented, but it was revealing about the new administration’s foreign policy going forward.

Zelensky appeared shocked by the biting candor, despite many signals that the US had had enough of supporting Ukraine. In the transactional mood of the White House, that support was not paying off. Trump had made it plain that he was not going to continue helping Ukraine without a substantial quid pro quo.

On Tuesday, Trump shed more light on his approach to both domestic and foreign policies. He gave a 100-minute-long speech before Congress, the longest by any president in decades. Political opponents and others have been busy fact-checking his remarks, but regardless of its factual veracity the speech unveiled some aspects of his likely approach in the coming four years.

Like other parts of the world, people in the Gulf have been watching developments in Washington with a mixture of shock, awe and apprehension, but also with hope that this administration will be more decisive and transparent than the previous one. The policies seem to be based on a mixture of mercantilism, transactionalism, realism and Trumpism.

It is strangely refreshing that this administration is prioritizing its own interests and saying so publicly, instead of claiming to uphold some lofty principles. Take the war in Gaza. The Biden administration claimed to be upholding international humanitarian law, but it nevertheless continued to provide Israel with the lethal means to carry out the genocide and total destruction of Gaza. It engaged in protracted, unsuccessful negotiations, which Israel used as cover for intensifying its onslaught. This region being obsessed with conspiracy theories, people thought that the failure of the negotiations was intentional, especially when Trump’s team was able to cobble together a deal in just a few days.

Since his inauguration on Jan. 20, President Trump has been true to his campaign promises, even when they are not popular. He took a sledgehammer and eliminated whole departments, cut them drastically or merged them with other agencies. Thousands of undocumented immigrants were rounded up and summarily deported.

It is true that Trump has reversed some long-standing US policies, but in some cases more in style and degree than in essence. Examples include industrial policy, foreign aid, security assistance and Middle East policy.

Addressing Congress on Tuesday, Trump made his case for tariffs, saying friend and foe alike impose tariffs on US exports and arguing for reciprocal tariffs, which he said will kick in on April 2. He wants to impose the same tariffs on imports from foreign countries as those nations impose on US exports. “If you don’t make your product in America … under the Trump administration, you will pay a tariff and in some cases a rather large one,” he said. He mentioned the EU, China, Brazil, India, Mexico, South Korea and Canada, which “have used tariffs against us for decades and now it’s our turn … That’s reciprocal, back and forth. Whatever they tax us, we will tax them.”

While the Trump administration is publicizing its high-tariff policy, the previous administration, without a lot of fanfare, continued to impose the prohibitive tariffs levied by the first Trump administration. Gulf Cooperation Council aluminum and steel exports to the US were among those heavily taxed. The Biden administration adopted an industrial policy in the form of tariffs and subsidies that was at odds with long-standing US opposition to such interventions in the market, essentially picking winners and losers. It justified it on national security grounds.

The 2022 National Security Strategy outlined a number of subsidy schemes, some worth hundreds of billions of dollars, allocated for specific industries it believed would help the US catch up with China. For a long time, the US stood firm against subsidies on principle, but the Biden administration abandoned that position, paving the way for such a Trump-style industrial policy.

From the point of view of some developing countries, this US reversal on industrial policy is welcome, because it allows them to also strengthen their industrial policies through generous subsidies for local producers and high tariffs on imports.

However, this regression to mercantilism and beggar-thy-neighbor policies is posing a threat to the international trading system and is likely to be a drag on growth in the future. For the GCC and other oil and gas-producing regions, that is bad news, because they thrive when the world economy is healthy.

When it comes to foreign aid, there has been a common thread in American politics that exaggerates how much the US gives to poor countries. In total, the US gave $68 billion in 2023, or about 0.24 percent of its gross domestic product. That rate is much less than the UN-recommended minimum of 0.7 percent of GDP and much less than most other wealthy countries. Much of the aid is security-targeted. For example, Ukraine got 25 percent of all aid. Israel and its neighbors got another 10 percent. In that year, aid declined by more than 10 percent.

It is true that Trump has reversed some long-standing US policies, but in some cases more in style and degree than in essence.

Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg

The Trump administration is signaling that security assistance will be based on reciprocity. But for the GCC countries, that has always been the case. They have paid full price for all the weapons and help they received, so if the administration were to apply that across the board, it would be welcome. The changes in security assistance and the uncertain security commitment of the US are creating anxieties, while also producing healthy reactions. The UK has decided to increase its defense spending and so have other beneficiaries of US security commitments. Trump is asking NATO partners to increase their defense spending to 5 percent of GDP, but that level is normal in the Gulf.

Perhaps the biggest visible change in US foreign policy is in the Middle East. Trump has proposed deporting the Palestinian population from Gaza, then rebuilding it but never allowing them to return.

This proposal was rejected by almost every country around the world because it would constitute a war crime if done by force. Secretary of State Marco Rubio asked Arab partners to come up with an alternative. This was done at Tuesday’s extraordinary Arab summit in Cairo, which adopted a $53 billion plan to rebuild Gaza. President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi of Egypt hosted the summit. He said at the opening session that he was looking forward to working with the Trump administration to implement the agreed Gaza plan, together with the UN and other international organizations. In other words, Trump’s unrealistic idea focused the minds and helped produce a credible plan, and quickly.

What is important is the substance of US policies, whether in the Middle East, on multilateralism or on security commitments, and not the style. The Trump administration’s in-your-face style could make it easier for some countries to make decisions, including on security partnerships and arms procurement. Trump’s declared commitment to ending all wars is also to be commended. Peace in Ukraine, Gaza and the West Bank is long overdue.

• Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg is the GCC assistant secretary-general for political affairs and negotiation. The views expressed here are personal and do not necessarily represent those of the GCC. X: @abuhamad1