The Secret to Balancing Domestic and Foreign Policy

Did Trump's international pursuits divert attention from the economy, costing Republicans on Election Day?

Image created by OpenAI/ChatGPT.

---

Bruised by their party’s heavy election losses, some Republican members of Congress quickly blamed them — at least in part — on the White House’s preoccupation with foreign policy. As important as the president’s diplomatic forays are, they said last week, the economy should top his agenda, because that’s what voters most care about.

Striking the right balance between domestic and foreign policy has been a challenge for presidents since the beginning of the republic. Some of those who served two terms had a domestic focus during their first four years, but as they pondered their legacies once re-elected, they shifted more attention to foreign affairs. Others were deprived of such calculations by overseas events early on that demanded immediate action.

So what’s the secret to balancing domestic and foreign policy? It’s actually not a secret at all for longtime career public servants — thousands of whom have been purged in the past 10 months — or for anyone familiar with presidential history and how the U.S. government works.

The “secret” is the much-vilified bureaucracy — more specifically, knowing how to use it and leverage its collective expertise and institutional memory to achieve policy objectives. Sure, some government employees are mediocre or worse, including among those who still have their jobs, and the bureaucracy has suffered from bloat and inefficiencies. But most former presidents and the majority of their Cabinets will tell you that, once they figured out the “secret,” they started trusting public servants in key positions and delegated to them tasks of high importance.

That enabled those principals, as they are known in Washington, to manage their own time much more effectively — and to keep their hands on the wheel both at home and abroad.

When the point is to cause pain

The Trump administration, of course, is a major exception. Its attitude toward career government employees goes far beyond distrust — it views them as evil. The arbitrary purges lacked any strategy to improve the bureaucracy, in spite of the professed goal of fixing Washington, and were mostly meant to inflict pain. The administration believes that bureaucrats are the problem and can’t possibly be part of the solution — and that governing without them is preferable to tolerating them.

There is something else. “I’m the only one that matters,” Trump said during his first term, especially regarding foreign policy. There is nothing wrong with trying to be a peacemaker and end wars, even if his obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize has become an oddity. It’s also understandable that he wants to make all major national-security decisions himself.

It’s not normal, however, for the president to get involved in what should be low-level decision-making, and to micromanage almost every issue — foreign or domestic — throughout its implementation. This is what his appointees and the bureaucracy guided by them are supposed to do. There is also supposed to be an interagency policy process, which deliberates, develops options and tries to resolve disputes before issues reach the president — precisely to reduce unnecessary demands on his time.

Governing versus ruling

But such practices don’t exist in the Trump administration, where the president doesn’t govern so much as rule — although many languages don’t have separate words for these verbs, English speakers appreciate the significant difference in their meaning. Instead of an interagency process, there are orders written without expert input, late-night pronouncements on social media and on-the-spot decisions made without serious thought.

So if Trump has been preoccupied with foreign policy at the expense of the economy and other domestic matters, that has been entirely self-inflicted. He didn’t need to spend time interfering in Brazil’s judicial system, because he was angry that his friend and former president, Jair Bolsonaro, was convicted of an attempted coup — upending the complex and vital U.S.-Brazil relationship. Nor did Trump need to bail out another friend, Argentinian President Javier Milei, to help his party win elections, using tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

And Trump certainly didn’t have to waste time inventing problems where none existed, like picking a fight with Canada for no good reason — and throwing a tantrum over a TV ad. But judging by his ability to find time to watch Fox News religiously, and to read little-known satirical websites and promote their fictitious content as truth on social media, perhaps the reason he hasn’t focused more on the economy is not a preoccupation with foreign policy.

Inserting yourself everywhere

In fact, designing a coherent foreign policy and crafting a strategy before making bombastic promises to end wars would be very useful. One can hardly make sense of campaigning for a Nobel Peace Prize while indiscriminately killing dozens of civilians on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, with no evidence of wrongdoing.

I don’t mean to diminish Trump’s second-term international victories so far. He managed to compel NATO members to commit to spending much more on their own defense than any of his predecessors had. He also succeeded in negotiating a ceasefire in Gaza and releasing all living Israeli hostages held by Hamas — and he deserves credit for both.

But ruling like a king and making snap decisions on matters he knows little about — without consulting experts, career government professionals or even his own political appointees — is the opposite of democratic governance. It’s no wonder that, when you insist on handling almost every issue, no matter how big or small, you won’t have time to keep your hands steadily on the wheel of state.

Is Trump a historical anomaly?

In the past century, the only other president whose distrust of public servants reached similar depths was Richard Nixon. His secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, had his own suspicions at first, but came to appreciate and rely on career diplomats in his later years in office.

The last Republican in the White House before Trump, George W. Bush, also took his time uncovering the “secret” — the way he treated public servants was markedly different during his second term. In the first four years, he thought that Secretary of State Colin Powell had been “captured” by the Foreign Service, which Bush often considered disloyal, and turned against the rush to war in Iraq and other aggressive policies. Alas, he preferred to listen to Vice President Dick Cheney rather than Powell.

It was remarkable to watch Bush’s transformation during his second term, after replacing Powell with Condoleezza Rice, whom he trusted much more. As a journalist, I covered the State Department during both their tenures and traveled with them. Rice had help in changing the president’s mind about the Foreign Service from Karen Hughes, another Bush confidant and longtime friend, who served as Rice’s undersecretary for public diplomacy.

Bush’s serenade to diplomats

Nowhere was Bush’s turnabout more evident than in a speech he gave in the State Department’s ornate Benjamin Franklin room five days before leaving office. I was in the room covering the speech, but I almost teared up re-reading the transcript today — the contrast between Bush’s sentiment and the current administration’s treatment of public servants is stunning.

Bush called the State Department “fabulous” — yes, for real — and “a vital part of making sure this country remains secure in the long run.” Then he paid a rare tribute to the “outstanding Foreign Service officers,” saying, “It’s been a joy to work with you.” Hold on to your tears — there is more.

“This is a profession that requires commitment and sacrifice,” Bush said of diplomacy. “When you volunteered for the Foreign Service, you agreed to put the needs of your country before your own and your family. You agreed to spend years away from home, and you knew that your service might just put you in harm’s way. Today, we send our thoughts and prayers to all the men and women representing America in distant lands, and we pledge that we will never forget the brave souls who did not come home.”

These are words presidents usually reserve for members of the military — and it’s why I almost teared up.

“As president,” Bush went on, “I have entrusted the Foreign Service with our nation’s most critical diplomatic missions. I have relied on your expertise, your advice and your good judgment. I will always be grateful for your valor and your professionalism.”

Those in the room who remembered how some of Bush’s own officials had vilified the Foreign Service a few years earlier could hardly believe their ears.

I doubt Trump will ever feel the way Bush did. But figuring out the “secret” might give him the time to focus on what truly matters to the country — assuming this is what he actually wants.

---

Both The Diplomacy Notebook and The Diplomacy Podcast are free, but you can show your support by making a donation to help us continue to produce unique and timely content.

Nicholas Kralev is the founder and executive director of the Washington International Diplomatic Academy, and a former Financial Times and Washington Times correspondent. His books include “Diplomatic Tradecraft,” “America’s Other Army” and “Diplomats in the Trenches.”