By Robert
Reich
A few weeks ago, even before the airstrike on Syria, Trump
communications director Mike Dubke told Trump’s assembled aides that
international affairs presented a messaging challenge because the Trump
administration lacks a coherent foreign policy.
“There is no Trump doctrine,” Dubke declared.
“There is no Trump doctrine,” Dubke declared.
I think Dubke is being grossly unfair. Of course there’s a Trump
Doctrine. You just have to know where to look for it.
The Trump Doctrine began to emerge when Trump issued his travel bans (both the first and second) on predominantly Muslim countries.
But he notably excluded predominately Muslim countries where
Trump has business interests.
So under what might be called the First Principle of the Trump
Doctrine, people living in a predominantly Muslim country have a chance of
entering the United States only if their country contains an edifice with
Trump’s name on it.
The Second Principle follows logically from the first. Countries
that are potential markets for Trump’s business – nominally run by his two
sons, but still filling his pockets – may be eligible for special favors if
they allow Trump to make money there.
For example, Trump’s business currently has 157 trademark
applications pending in 36 nations, according to the New York Times.
Registered trademarks are giant financial assets for a business
like Trump’s, which in recent years has made big money by selling his name
rather than by building or making anything.
Soon after he was sworn into office – but only after Trump
backed off of his brief flirtation with a “two China” policy – the Chinese
government granted Trump preliminary approval of 38 trademarks of his name.
“It was a gift,” said Peter J. Riebling, a trademark lawyer in
Washington, of China’s decision. “Getting the exclusive right to use that brand
in China against everyone else in the world? It’s like waving a magic wand.”
One potential obstacle for the Second Principle is the
Constitution’s “emoluments” clause, which bars U.S. government officials from
receiving gifts from foreign powers.
No matter. Apparently the Trump Doctrine, well, trumps the
Constitution.
A group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
joined by several prominent law professors, is suing Trump over this.
But the United States – through the U.S. Department of Justice –
argues in a legal brief, expected to be filed this month, that the framers of
the Constitution meant only to rule out gifts that compensate presidents or
other office holders for services they might do for a foreign
power, not for public policies they advance that benefit a foreign power.
Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution by the Department of
Justice aren’t like the musings of any random defense attorney. They carry
special weight. They represent the views and interests of the United States.
Which makes this one official U.S. government policy – and
thereby, confirms it as the Second Principle of the Trump Doctrine.
The Third Principle comes down hard on countries that kill their
own children with poison gas. They will be bombed.
You may recall Trump had long been opposed to bombing Syria.
But, as he recently explained, Syrian dictator Basha al-Assad’s “attack on
children … had a big impact on me,“ adding that "my attitude toward Syria
and Assad has changed very much.” The bombing ensued.
This doesn’t mean endangered children will be given refuge in
the United States, though. Recall the First Principle: Nobody gains entrance to
the United States from a predominantly Muslim nations unless their country
contains a Trump hotel, spa, or golf course.
Which brings us to the Fourth Principle.
Not long after the Syrian bombing, Trump authorized the Pentagon
to drop a 22,000-pound GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) on
people described as “Islamic State forces” in eastern Afghanistan near the
Pakistani border.
It was the first time the bomb – nicknamed the “mother of all
bombs,” and one of the largest air-dropped munitions in the U.S. military’s
inventory – had ever been used in a combat.
Trump’s rationale? The group was allegedly connected to ISIS.
So under the Fourth Principle of the Trump Doctrine, the United
States reserves the right to drop a mother of a bomb on any group seemingly
connected with ISIS.
This applies even if the group is not fighting to gain or
hold territory claimed by the Islamic State. The group could be thousands
of miles away from the Islamic State, anywhere around the world.
Could a mother of a bomb be dropped on such a group if it’s
located in a country containing a Trump hotel, or considering a Trump trademark
application?
Frankly, I don’t know. That pesky detail hasn’t been worked out
yet.
But this one uncertainty doesn’t undermine the overall
consistency or clarity of the Trump Doctrine of foreign policy. It’s four
major principles are firmly rooted either in making money for Trump, or
stopping bad people from doing bad things.
If Mike Dubke had a clearer grasp of Donald Trump’s
worldview, he’d surely see this – as would everyone else.
ROBERT B. REICH is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at
the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center
for Developing Economies. He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton
administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective
cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fourteen books,
including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of
Nations," and "Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent,
"Saving Capitalism." He is also a founding editor of the American
Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary,
INEQUALITY FOR ALL.
