Recommended Weekend Reads
The 2nd Trump Presidency, Ukraine: What Happens Now?, And China’s Axis of Losers
November 8 - 10, 2024
Please find below our recommended reads from reports and articles we read in the last week. We hope you find these useful and that you have a relaxing weekend. And let us know if you or someone you know wants to be added to our distribution list.
The 2nd Trump Presidency
The 2024 Election Results Tiber Creek Group
One of Washington’s leading government consulting firms offers a comprehensive and superb overview of the November 5th elections from the Presidential race to the Congressional elections, all the way down to state and local elections.
Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Project 2025/The Heritage Foundation
Much criticized during the presidential campaigns, the Washington, D.C. based think tank the Heritage Foundation published a comprehensive, highly detailed set of policy recommendations for Donald Trump to consider. While Trump went on to repudiate his relationship with Project 2025, it will undoubtedly play a role in policy development in the new Trump Administration as well as with the newly elected Republican Senate majority and what appears to be a likely House Republican majority.
Policy Issues America First Policy Institute
Established by a group of senior advisors to then-former President Donald Trump, the American First Policy Institute (AFPI) set out define policy positions for a future Trump Administration. Like the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, their policy ideas will play a major role in policy development in the newly elected Trump Administration.
Donald Trump just won the presidency. Our experts answer the big questions about what that means for America’s role in the world. Atlantic Council
When Donald Trump returns to the presidency on January 20, Trump’s inbox will be full of global challenges. How will he respond? And what will the consequences be? Below, our experts provide answers across twenty-four of the most significant policy matters awaiting the next administration.
The 2024 Trump Campaign Policy Proposals: Budgetary, Economic and Distributional Effects Penn Wharton Budget Model
We project that conventionally estimated tax revenue falls by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years, producing an equivalent amount of primary deficits. Accounting for economic feedback effects, primary deficits increase by $4.1 trillion over the same period. While GDP increases during part of the first decade (2025 – 2034), GDP eventually falls relative to current law, falling by 0.4 percent in 2034 and by 2.1 percent in 30 years (year 2054). After initially increasing, capital investment and working hours eventually fall, leaving average wages unchanged in 2034 and lower by 1.7 percent in 2054. Low, middle, and high-income households in 2026 and 2034 all fare better under the campaign proposals on a conventional basis. These conventional gains and losses do not include the additional debt burden on future generations who must finance almost the entirety of the tax decreases.
What Does Donald Trump’s Win Mean For U.S. Foreign Policy? National Security Journal
It is time to discuss what a foreign policy under President-elect Donald Trump would mean. First, there are two blazing wars to settle that have no easy answers. Next is the Taiwan question and what to do with China overall. Then we have border security. Don’t forget North Korea, which is in bed with Russia and threatening to go to war with South Korea. There is also the problem of a nuclear-equipped Iran.
How Europe Should Woo Trump The Strategist/Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Donald Trump’s re-election as US president is a shock to Europe, which is woefully unprepared. His promised protectionism threatens the European Union’s struggling export-led economies, and his transactional attitude toward NATO endangers Europe’s already feeble security. Ukraine could soon be sacrificed to Russia, and by emboldening nationalist fellow-travelers such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Trump may cause EU unity to be further undermined from within. Shell-shocked Europeans will be tempted to hunker down and hope that Trump does not make good on his most extreme policies: slapping blanket tariffs on European exports, abandoning Ukraine and quitting NATO. But this would be a catastrophic mistake. Europeans must swallow their pride and try to win Trump over.
Ukraine: What Happens Now?
The Perfect Has Become the Enemy of the Good in Ukraine: Why Washington Must Redefine Its Objectives Richard Haass/Foreign Affairs
Most U.S. policymakers would probably define winning in Ukraine in a way similar to how Kyiv defines it, including in its most recent “victory plan”: ousting Russian troops from the entirety of Ukraine’s territory, Crimea included, and reestablishing control over its 1991 borders. There is good reason for adopting this definition. But Washington must grapple with the grim reality of the war and come to terms with a more plausible outcome. It should still define victory as Kyiv remaining sovereign and independent, free to join whatever alliances and associations it wants. But it should jettison the idea that, to win, Kyiv needs to liberate all its land. So as the United States and its allies continue to arm Ukraine, they must take the uncomfortable step of pushing Kyiv to negotiate with the Kremlin—and laying out a clear sense of how it should do so. Such a pivot may be unpopular. It will take political courage to make, and it will require care to implement. But it is the only way to end the hostilities, preserve Ukraine as a truly independent country, enable it to rebuild, and avoid a dire outcome for both Ukraine and the world.
What do North Korean Troop Deployments to Russia Mean for Geopolitics? Brookings Institution
In early October, Ukrainian intelligence reported that several thousand North Korean soldiers were undergoing training in Russia in preparation for deployment to the Ukrainian front line later this year. South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) later corroborated Ukraine’s assertions, sharing satellite images of Russian vessels transporting the first batch of 1,500 North Korean special forces to Russia’s Far East. On October 23, White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby confirmed the presence of at least 3,000 soldiers. The Pentagon now believes that 10,000 North Korean troops are in Russia with a contingent heading toward the Kursk region in western Russia to battle Ukrainian forces. The large deployment of North Korean troops in Russia represents a troubling new phase in the Russia-Ukraine war while carrying deeper implications for global politics. We address five key questions related to accelerating North Korea-Russia military cooperation.
Crossing the Rubicon: DPRK Sends Troops to Russia Center for Strategic and International Studies
The U.S. government has confirmed and released evidence that North Korea (DPRK) sent troops to Russia. Speaking in Italy after a trip to Ukraine, U.S. secretary of defense Lloyd Austin called this development a “very, very serious issue” and warned of impacts not only in Europe but in the Indo-Pacific as well. While the U.S. government is still uncertain of the role the North Korean troops will play, Austin suggested that this is an indication that Vladimir Putin “may be even in more trouble than most people realize.” But what is in it for North Korea?
China
Xi Jinping’s Axis of Losers – The Right Way to Thwart the New Autocratic Convergence Stephen Hadley/Foreign Affairs
The United States is contending with the most challenging international environment it has faced since at least the Cold War and perhaps since World War II. One of the most disconcerting features of this environment is the burgeoning cooperation among China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Some policymakers and commentators see in this cooperation the beginnings of a twenty-first-century axis, one that, like the German-Italian-Japanese axis of the twentieth century, will plunge the world into a global war. Others foresee not World War III but a slew of separate conflicts scattered around the globe. Either way, the result is a world at war—the situation is that serious. What should be done about this cooperation is another matter. Washington’s aim should be to make clear to Chinese President Xi Jinping how counterproductive and costly to Beijing’s interests these new relationships will turn out to be. That means effectively countering Iran, North Korea, and Russia in their own regions, thereby demonstrating to China that tethering itself to a bunch of losers is hardly a path to global influence.
China’s long shadow over Asia’s critical minerals Hinrich Foundation
When it comes to securing supply for critical minerals it does not possess in sufficient quantities at home, China has been investing heavily overseas. In Southeast Asia, Beijing has invested about US$4 billion since 2012 in 12 projects, a lot of it concentrated in Indonesia, which exports 16% of the world’s nickel. From a long-term geopolitical, economic, and sustainability perspective, it is not in ASEAN’s interests to be drawn exclusively into one Great Power’s sphere of influence.
Geoeconomics and Trade
Did Tariffs make American Manufacturing Great? New Evidence from the Gilded Age Alexander Klein & Christopher Meissner/National Bureau of Economic Research
We study the relationship between tariffs and labor productivity in US manufacturing between 1870 and 1909. Using highly dis-aggregated tariff data, state-industry data for the manufacturing sector, and an instrumental variable strategy, results show that tariffs reduced labor productivity. Tariffs also generally reduced the average size of establishments within an industry but raised output prices, value-added, gross output, employment, and the number of establishments. We also find evidence of heterogeneity in the association between tariffs and value added, gross output, employment, and establishments across groups of industries. We conclude that tariffs may have reduced labor productivity in manufacturing by weakening import competition and by inducing entry of smaller, less productive domestic firms. Our research also reveals that lobbying by powerful and productive industries may have been at play. The era’s high tariffs are unlikely to have helped the US become a globally competitive manufacturer.