Valley of the Dolls (May 8, 2025)

Welcome to Home & Away. As always these days, a lot has happened since I last wrote. The Trump administration is escalating its campaign against Harvard, declaring it ineligible for federal grants and doubling down on threats to revoke its tax-exempt status. The risk of a serious conflict between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan is growing following Indian strikes on targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. These came as retaliation for a recent terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that India blames (for good reason based on my experience) on Pakistan. More positively, President Trump announced what appears to be a mutual standdown between the United States and the Houthis. Also on the positive side of the ledger are U.S.-China talks announced for this weekend that could begin to unwind the trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

There is a new chancellor in Germany (after a second vote), a new executive order imposing tariffs on foreign films, and, as will be discussed below, a new U.S. national security advisor. Plus, Trump gave two revealing interviews where, among other things, he seemed unsure of what the Declaration of Independence entails, contradicted the Constitution in saying that he didn’t know if everyone on American soil is entitled to due process, and was sanguine about what many forecast as a coming recession and potentially steep increases in the price of imported consumer goods for Americans, stating that “I don’t think that a beautiful baby girl needs...to have 30 dolls. I think they can have three dolls or four dolls.”

Realignment

Election results around the world have surprised of late, bucking last year’s anti-incumbent wave. In both Canada and Australia, the incumbent center-left candidates prevailed over their right-wing challengers. What helped both Mark Carney (who called on President Trump this week) and Anthony Albanese was an anti-Trump, anti-American sentiment that left voters wanting stability and someone cut from a different cloth than the U.S. president.

Interestingly, local election results in the United Kingdom had a different outcome. Brexit advocate Nigel Farage’s Reform UK movement fared far better than anticipated in a by-election as well as in numerous local races. Smaller parties (the centrist Lib-Dems and the Greens) also did well. The ruling Labour Party had a disappointing showing while the Conservative (Tory) Party performed disastrously.

I am struck by the similarity between what appears to be taking place in the United Kingdom and developments here. In the United Kingdom, the traditional center-right Conservative Party (which also fared badly in the last national election) may soon be marginalized by the upstart populist Reform movement. If so, the principal alternative to Labour will be far-right rather than center-right and radical rather than conservative.

In the United States, a similar trend is at work. The surging MAGA movement didn’t take on the Republican Party so much as take it over. The result is a Republican Party that has abandoned its conservative roots. One consequence of this phenomenon is that there is no longer a traditional conservative political party in American politics. The Republican Party is unlikely to go back to being one any time soon.

Meanwhile, there is the question of whether the Democratic Party becomes a centrist party (of the center-left), capitalizing on the Republican Party’s shift that has left many independents and traditional Republicans politically homeless. Or it could opt to go further left to appeal to its increasingly disaffected base that indulges in its own excesses. The 2028 primary could well be decisive here, as it is likely to feature a contest between two Democratic Party factions: one emphasizing identity politics, higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and fewer overseas commitments—with little sympathy for Israel—and another more skeptical of identity politics, sympathetic to business and trade, internationalist, and pro-Israel.

We are in the midst of what could prove to be a major realignment in American politics, and if it continues, we could see the emergence of small alternative parties of the center and organized around particular causes alongside a MAGA-led Republican Party and a progressive Democratic Party. As Europe shows, such outcomes tend to make reaching the compromises essential to governing even more difficult than it already is.

Musical Chairs

Mike Waltz is out as national security advisor and Marco Rubio is in. Waltz was not a natural for the role as he lacked a deep connection to President Trump or a base in MAGA-land. He was something of a traditional Republican hawk in an administration with isolationist tendencies and disinclined to confront traditional adversaries like Russia. My guess is, given these ideological differences, he wouldn’t have survived even if Signalgate hadn’t happened, but it did, and it was a question of when, not if, Waltz (who added Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic into the chat) would pay the price.

Trump nominated Waltz for the job of U.S. ambassador to the UN, more formally known as the permanent representative of the United States to the United Nations. My confident prediction is that this job will not be of great importance, as this administration, with its penchant for unilateral action, has little interest in using the United Nations as a forum for rallying the world but rather sees it as a pulpit from which to assert American preferences and demands.

We might be getting ahead of ourselves, though. I expect Waltz’s confirmation hearing will make for good theater, as it will provide a rare opportunity for Democrats to attack the administration, questioning Waltz under oath about his use of Signal, and, in the process, raising the pressure on Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who remains in his post despite his repeated sharing of sensitive military information with individuals unauthorized to have access to them, including on Signal, which is itself not authorized for the transmission of classified material.

The bigger issue, though, has nothing to do with Waltz but everything to do with Marco Rubio. Rubio is only the second person in U.S. history to be simultaneously double hatted as secretary of state and assistant to the president for national security affairs. The first and only until now was Henry Kissinger, who held both positions for just over two years under Gerald Ford.

This is not a good idea. It is all but impossible for one individual to be an advocate wearing his State Department hat while simultaneously serving as a trusted guarantor of due process and traffic cop in his White House role, ensuring that no department or agency’s interests are being disproportionately promoted or ignored in national security considerations. It is akin to playing tennis and having your opponent call the lines on both sides of the court. It asks a lot of someone, no matter how fair-minded he or she might be.

Beyond that, it is also nearly impossible to do both jobs well given their nature and demands. The secretary of state is the country’s chief diplomat and must represent it around the world. It is extremely difficult for someone to do that, oversee the State Department with all its embassies, and then manage the interagency process. This is especially critical in an administration not known for its commitment to process but in great need of more of it.

From Worse to Even Worse

Gaza is a recurring example of what I would call the golden rule of the Middle East: just when you think the situation there cannot get any worse, it does. It has been nineteen months since the horrific terrorist attacks of October 7 that killed more than 1,200 Israelis and others. Hundreds were taken hostage. Some have been freed, some killed, and as many as 59 remain, although how many are alive is unknown (current Israeli estimates believe it is just over 20). Over fifty thousand Palestinians in Gaza (out of a population of two million) have been killed by Israeli military actions.

There was a glimmer of hope when Israel and Hamas agreed to a three-stage ceasefire deal earlier this year. It lasted for two months, during which 33 hostages were freed and almost two thousand Palestinian prisoners released. The flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza increased. But the ceasefire broke down in March before the second stage (which, among other things, called for negotiations to secure a permanent ceasefire as well as more hostage and prisoner releases) when Israel resumed military operations and halted the flow of all humanitarian aid, including food, medicine, and fuel into Gaza.

This week, Israel announced its intention to force Gaza’s population into a fraction of the territory, escalate military efforts against Hamas, and indefinitely hold territory it seizes. Israel’s long-anticipated “Day After” strategy threatens its remaining hostages and appears to be little more than an open-ended military campaign and occupation, with Israel’s finance minister saying, “We are finally going to occupy the Gaza Strip. We will stop being afraid of the word occupation.” As for the Trump administration, what is striking is not what it is saying and doing but what it is not saying and not doing. It is revealing that Trump will not be stopping in Israel during next week’s trip to the region lest he be pressed by journalists on why his administration is not doing more to bring about a tolerable outcome in Gaza. What I wrote just over a week ago still holds:

“Trump has essentially given Israel’s government a free hand to do what it wants in both Gaza and the West Bank. It seems to have lost interest in extending the Hamas-Israel ceasefire as this would put it at odds with a prime minister who appears to value maintaining his coalition, through continuing military operations against Hamas, over freeing the remaining hostages. Gone is pressure on Israel to rein in its military operations or even allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, which is almost two months into a full blockade. Trump’s own proposal for Gaza, to empty it of its two million Palestinian inhabitants and to rebuild a new Riviera, went nowhere, but seems to have emboldened the Israeli government to begin making efforts to depopulate, occupy, and potentially settle large swaths of Gaza.”

Changing Channels

The president recently signed yet another executive order, this time instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to cancel as soon as possible existing federal funding for both PBS and NPR and to halt future funding. The administration justified this decision on the grounds that “neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens.”

Unsurprisingly, both PBS and NPR have announced their determination to challenge this decision in court on the basis that the president exceeded his authority and that only Congress (which authorizes and appropriates funding to the CPB) can make such a determination. Congress, for its part, had already extended funding through September of 2027.

I would suggest they rethink their strategy. Don’t get me wrong; I am a fan of both, as each tends to provide quality news and analysis. That said, it is not in the long-term interest of either to be dependent on the government. It is not just that the government can turn off the tap for political or economic reasons, as it is seeking to do under this administration. It is also that a financial dependency inevitably raises questions about editorial independence—as in what stories are not reported or are being reported differently out of fear of funding repercussions like this one.

All of which makes ProPublica, which accepts no government funding as I understand it, a better model for both. (Full disclosure: for reasons similar to those outlined just above, I decided soon after becoming president of the Council on Foreign Relations some 22 years ago to stop accepting funding from any government.) I can appreciate any transition to such a funding model wouldn’t be easy—especially in the current environment in which many universities and organizations are asking for financial help in the face of federal funding shortfalls and a potential recession. But while such a transition would likely require cuts in what is produced in the short term, I still believe both NPR and PBS could raise considerable money from foundations, corporations, and individual citizens by making the case they must be in a position to make sure the government doesn’t control what they broadcast. Given the risk that Congress eventually acquiesces to Trump’s demands even if NPR and PBS prevail in their legal challenges, I suggest they start acting immediately to shore up external funding.

Draining

I also want to highlight an article by Rafael Reif, the president emeritus (I like the ring of that) of MIT, that appeared in Foreign Affairs. “America’s Coming Brain Drain” details how the administration’s ongoing assault on this country’s universities will backfire as the loss of funding will slow innovation here, driving many of the most talented researchers to other countries. Moves by the IRS to tax endowments would only exacerbate matters, as will creating an environment that discourages foreign students from studying here and remaining here afterwards. American competitiveness will decline relative to that of others—including our adversaries—as will economic growth. It would be equal parts ironic and tragic if policies stimulated by America First created a world of China First, but that seems to be where we are heading.

Joe Nye, RIP

Joe Nye passed away Wednesday at the age of 88. An extraordinarily influential scholar, Joe helped develop the concept of interdependence and coined the notion of “soft power,” ideas that didn’t just enter the lexicon but added an important dimension to thinking about foreign policy and international relations. (Speaking of soft power, which is about influencing others more through example and attraction than coercion or brute force, we could use a little more of it these days, say towards Greenland or Canada.) He was also a skilled practitioner who served in the Carter and Clinton administrations, someone who shaped U.S. policy so we could spread nuclear energy without spreading nuclear weapons. He authored a report that shaped U.S.-Japan relations for decades. And he was a capable administrator, be it of the National Intelligence Council or the Kennedy School of Government. More than that, he was a genuinely nice man who was a wonderful friend and colleague. Quite the legacy. May his memory always be for a blessing.

As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.

---

Richard Haass in the news

Friday, May 2: Quoted in Politico (“Trump’s Minerals Deal with Ukraine Leaves Scramble for how to Handle Russia”)

Monday, May 5: Morning Joe (“Trump Wants it Both Ways on Economy: Credit for Good Things, None of the Blame for the Bad”)

Tuesday, May 6: Fireside Chat With Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (on Trump’s foreign policy)

Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens