There is an unwritten protocol that usually and generally governs the behavior of an outgoing president and an incoming president during this period between an election and inauguration.
On domestic policy, there is usually a bit of a rush to the finish line by the outgoing administration, trying to get as much accomplished as possible in the time left. This is particularly true if the baton is being passed to a president of the opposing party. And in that circumstance, the incoming administration spends part of its early days trying to undo at least some of what the outgoing administration attempted in its rush to the finish line.
The usual protocol on foreign policy, however, is very different than this domestic policy tug-of-war. There the convention has been to present to the rest of the world a firm resolution that the U.S. only has one president at a time. And, most importantly, only one commander-in-chief at a time.
During this period, the incoming president is customarily circumspect regarding public pronouncements about international events. Discussions with other governments are discreet and as private as possible. The outgoing president, in turn, tries to avoid any actions that bind the incoming president or creates new, unresolved problems or issues.
It is unsurprising that Donald Trump would not feel bound or constrained by this unwritten protocol. He is regularly issuing public foreign policy pronouncements and engaging in very public discussions with foreign leaders. It offers a preview of the erratic chaos that will undoubtedly characterize Trump’s foreign policy in a second term.
Trump has threatened presumably, although not clearly, Hamas regarding releasing hostages. In a Truth Social post, he demanded that the hostages be released prior to his inauguration, or “there will be ALL HELL TO PAY …. Those responsible will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied History of the United States of America.”
If Hamas is the intended target of the threat, what in the world could Trump do to it that Israel has not already done, or is unwilling to do? And if Hamas is not the target, who is? Its patron Iran? And if Iran, what is Trump threatening to do? Hit Iran harder than we hit Germany and Japan in World War II?
The cynic in me believes that Trump meant absolutely nothing by this threat. Instead, he was positioning himself to take credit if there was a hostage deal before his inauguration, something the Biden administration has been working on assiduously. If it happens before his inauguration, Trump and his acolytes will claim that it was only because of his threat, however utterly devoid of meaning it might be. His announced national security adviser, Michael Waltz, already has proclaimed that Trump deserves credit for the ceasefire negotiated in Lebanon, even though he had nothing to do with it.
When insurgents began to advance in Syria, Trump publicly said that the U.S. should stay out of it. However, we have troops stationed in Syria. The actual president ordered strikes against remnant ISIS forces in Syria, both to protect our troops and to prevent ISIS from potentially gaining ground during the tumult.
Trump has publicly called for an immediate ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Irrespective of the merits of that, Trump isn’t the president right now. Biden is. It is irresponsible for Trump to publicly insert himself into such a dangerous, volatile and important international flash point before formally assuming the reins of power.
It is, however, Trump’s tariff threats that contain the most important lessons for the rest of the world.
Again, it is a violation of the unwritten protocol, and irresponsible, for Trump to be riling relations with other countries while Biden is still president and responsible for the management of relations with those countries. There is nothing about these tariff threats that couldn’t have waited until Trump actually assumed office.
Trump has threatened Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs on all imports. These tariffs aren’t tied to a demand for easier access for American exports. In fact, they aren’t tied to trade issues at all. Trump threatened the tariffs unless Canada and Mexico take unspecified action related to drugs and migration.
However, if Canada and Mexico somehow satisfied the drug and migration demand, the threat of tariffs wouldn’t go away. Trump would find other grounds, related to trade or not, to continue to threaten or impose them.
And that despite the fact that these tariffs, or any successors, violate the terms of the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, which was duly ratified and enacted into law by the U.S. Congress.
Now, the Trump administration may claim that these tariffs fit the national security exception provision of the agreement, but that’s clearly an artifice. The USMCA was negotiated by the first Trump administration. So, the message to the rest of the world is that Trump does not feel bound even by agreements made by his own administration. It can all be undone by a spur-of-the-moment Truth Social post.
The other tariff threat was directed at the BRICS countries. At one of their confabs, there was some discussion about an alternative to the dollar as a reserve currency. In response, sure enough, was a Trump Truth Social post: “We require a commitment from these Countries that they will neither create a new BRICS Currency, nor back any other Currency to replace the mighty U.S. Dollar or, they will face 100% Tariffs, and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful U.S. Economy.”
The original BRICS countries were Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. They have been joined by Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. Other countries are considering membership.
There is a broad consensus among economists, about which I am skeptical, that there are substantial benefits to the U.S. in the dollar’s status as the international reserve currency.
Although “reserve currency” is the term commonly used, “preferred currency” would be a more accurate description. Compared to other currencies, the dollar is comparatively stable and liquid. Denominating trades in dollar terms reduces risk for both the seller and the buyer, even if neither is an American company. And to the extent companies or countries want to maintain a reserve, dollar-denominated assets tend to be safer and more liquid.
So long as those advantages remain, it doesn’t matter whether new currencies are introduced, the dollar will remain the preferred currency for international trade and reserves. The federal government’s deficits and loose monetary policies are greater threats to the dollar’s position as a preferred currency than any competing BRICS currency might be.
However, to the extent the U.S. continues to weaponize access to the dollar as an instrument to achieve foreign policy objectives, we increase the incentive to find and use alternatives. And this is where the Trump tariff threat is kind of weird.
The U.S. already has sanctions in place intended to prevent access to the dollar financial system by two of the BRICS members, Russia and Iran. And we limit access to it by some companies in China. So, we are going to threaten them with tariffs for not using a dollar financial system from which they are supposedly excluded?
The U.S. has the deepest consumer market in the world. We are an indispensable market for exports from Canada and Mexico. For the BRICS countries, not so much.
We import over $550 billion of goods from BRICS countries. However, three-quarters of it is from China. During the campaign, Trump threatened a 60% tariff on all Chinese goods. Another 10% was included in the Canada-Mexico threat. China sees developing a robust alternative to dollar-denominated trade as a vital strategic interest. Yet another tariff threat isn’t going to derail that quest a bit.
The U.S. is the market for just 15% of China’s exports. We are an even smaller export destination for the other BRICS countries. We actually have a trade surplus with some of them.
The U.S. remains the premier economic and military force in the world. However, the world is a big place and other countries are developing economically and militarily.
Trump may think he can get other countries to yield to his will by issuing tough-sounding posts on Truth Social. My guess is that has diminishing results over time, with lasting consequences for the standing of the U.S. in the world.
Editor’s note: Retired Arizona journalist Robert Robb opines about politics and public policy on Substack. Reach him at robtrobb@gmail.com. Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.
