 "US President Donald Trump. AFP")
With the resumption of supply of weapons to Ukraine , US President Donald Trump has taken yet another major u-turn in the foreign and defence policy domains.
Trump’s second term has been full of chaotic u-turns that have rattled not just US partners but also those inside the administration. From the wars in Ukraine to West Asia, the lack of any coherent strategy and frequent flip-flops have led to questions about who is actually running the show.
In most cases, it is not Trump or even his secretaries of defence or state.
A growing body of evidence has suggested that a group of bureaucrats is running the chaotic show as Trump and others at the helm are taking only marginal interest in policy and instead indulge in populist agenda like immigration raids and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric.
Consider this: Trump did not block the supply of weapons to Ukraine last week. It was not even Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth — even if he formally signed off. That decision, along with the review of Aukus pact with the United Kingdom and Australia, was driven by Elbridge Colby, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
While Hegseth at least formally signed off the order to block weapons to Ukraine, Politico has reported that the Aukus review that has compromised the relationship with the UK and Australia —and risked the collapse of naval defence in the Indo-Pacific against China— was entirely Colby’s doing.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsHere are five instances that show the dysfunctional policymaking in Trump’s second term.
1. From ’not our war’ to bombing Iran
Trump came to office with the promise to not just start a new war but end wars in Ukraine and West Asia.
Trump said that the war in West Asia, including the Israel-Iran conflict, was not an American war.
Yet, even after maintaining for a long time that he would not enter a new war, Trump plunged the United States into a new war as he joined Israel in the war on Iran and conducted airstrikes on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities.
The American media have reported that Trump did not have a position rooted in policy before Israel launched the war last month. Instead, he made an ad-hoc decision along the way to join the war after deliberations with senior officials. Notably, he trashed his own intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, to justify the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities.
2. Flip-flops on Ukraine aid
In their call on Friday, Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that he had not ordered the suspension of weapon deliveries, according to Wall Street Journal.
Trump later confirmed in public remarks that weapons’ supply to Ukraine will resume.
“We’re going to send some more weapons. We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves. They’re getting hit very hard. Now they’re getting hit very hard. We’re going to have to send more weapons, defensive weapons, primarily, but they’re getting hit very, very hard. So many people are dying in that mess," said Trump.
This was the third time that the Department of Defense itself stopped the weapons’ supplies to Ukraine, according to NBC News.
Just like this time, the supplies were resumed within days in the previous two instances as well.
The Journal reported that Trump told Zelenskyy that he had ordered a review of stockpile of munitions after strikes on Iran but had not ordered the suspension of supplies to Ukraine.
That decision, as per NBC News, was driven by Colby and signed off by Hegseth. It blindsided even the Department of State and Ukrainian government.
The decision was taken despite the Trump-ordered review finding that supplies to Ukraine would not have compromised the US stockpiles, according to the report.
3. US left red-faced at world stage — thanks to lack of policymaking
The lack of coherence in US handling of foreign and security affairs has left the nation red-faced at the world stage.
It’s not just because the topsy-turvy decision-making has led to a loss of faith in the Trump administration. It is also because Trump has failed spectacularly on every issue that he stated to his priority.
Instead of ending the war in Ukraine, it has intensified and expanded. The Chinese support to Russia has continued despite Trump’s attempts to drive a wedge between the two. As per latest reports, North Korea is sending up to 30,000 soldiers to fight along with Russian personnel in the war on Ukraine.
ALSO READ: Even as Trump slams Putin for civilians’ killings, he rewards Russia by accepting its terms
Trump has floated three ceasefire and numerous public pleas for ceasefire and halt in attacks on civilians. Russian leader Vladimir Putin has rejected all of these offers and pleadings. Instead, in what has left Trump red-faced worldwide, Putin has followed almost every conversation with Trump with massive airstrikes on Ukraine.
4. Even Indo-Pacific is now compromised
The basis for the US withdrawal from Europe was a pivot to the Indo-Pacific to counter China but that appears to be hollow now.
With Colby’s review of Aukus , which has led to fears that Trump could kill the agreement, the military partnership with the UK and Australia that was supposed to underpin the challenge to Chinese hegemonic designs in the region has been compromised.
Moreover, Trump has continued to engage in trade wars with allies in the region, like Japan and South Korea, which compromises ties.
5. Who is really in charge?
No one knows for sure who is in charge but one thing is apparent — Trump is not in charge full-time of the administration he is running.
Even his secretaries are not that influential as Secretary of State Marco Rubio is wearing too many hats and appears to be less influential in reality than believed.
In reality, it appears that US defence policy is being run by Colby, according to Tom Nichols, a staff writer at Atlantic.
In an article for the magazine, Nichols noted that heads of departments in the Trump administration are “either incompetent or detached from most of the policy making, and so decisions are being made at lower levels without much guidance from above”. He said that one of the reasons for the same is that while Trump and other senior figures are more interested in populist agenda, senior officials were chosen for loyalty instead of skills, so the policymaking rests on the likes of Colby who are senior officials but are not in traditional policymaking positions.
Such a system means that no one is really in charge of the US government on most days as Trump has no interest in running the government and his secretaries are both incompetent and uninterested.
“The Trump White House’s policy process—insofar as it can be called a “process”—is the type found in many authoritarian states, where the top levels of government tackle the one or two big things the leader wants done and everything else tumbles down to other functionaries, who can then drive certain issues according to their own preferences (which seems to be what Colby is doing), or who will do just enough to stay under the boss’s radar and out of trouble (which seems to be what most other Trump appointees are doing). In such a system, no one is really in charge except Trump—which means that on most days, and regarding many issues, no one is in charge,” noted Nichols in his article.