Trump’s Approach to Military and Diplomacy
In his recent address, President Trump stated his intention to create “the most powerful army the world has ever seen.” He backed this claim in June with a record $1.01 trillion proposal to Congress for the Department of Defense’s budget for 2026.
He also expressed a desire to be viewed as a “peacemaker and unity” figure in the same speech. However, on that same day, he signed a Presidential Order that led to the dismantling of the US International Development Agency. This action initiated a process that could weaken America’s diplomatic abilities to promote its interests, prevent conflicts, and encourage peaceful solutions to global issues.
The military capabilities of the country are straightforward—they involve forces, weapons, training, logistics, and bases. Trump’s massive defense budget will bolster an already strong military infrastructure. Yet, to truly succeed in foreign affairs, the US also requires a strong diplomatic presence. This involves specific and, perhaps more importantly, intangible dimensions.
The specific aspects include personnel, existence, and programs, while the intangible aspect relates to the idea of “soft power”—a term coined by Harvard scholar Joe Nye.
America’s most significant diplomatic asset is its skilled, experienced diplomats. However, these individuals are not born but rather trained over many years, acquiring vital skills and knowledge along the way.
Investing in diplomats and civil servants is crucial for the national security of the United States and the welfare of foreign citizens. To effectively compete globally, particularly against China, the US needs its best diplomats.
Yet, just recently, the Trump administration announced the dismissal of 1,300 State Department officials, following the termination of nearly all USAID staff. This move indicates a retreat from long-standing investments in vital national security resources.
In the realm of diplomacy, presence matters immensely. Diplomatic entities, such as embassies and consulates, serve US interests around the globe. They act as America’s eyes and ears, safeguarding its interests and keeping the government informed about developments while also promoting policy priorities.
America has traditionally maintained a robust international diplomatic presence, but that landscape is changing, with China stepping up its efforts. The planned reduction—part of a broader strategy under Trump’s administration—may ultimately benefit adversaries.
Importantly, diplomacy is not just about dialogue; it facilitates action. Diplomatic programs are essential tools for achieving strategic goals and often change with administrative shifts.
These programs range from humanitarian aid to support for American businesses seeking to enter international markets. They also leverage international organizations to promote US interests. For instance, programs like “Food for Peace” and funding through the United Nations—where the US covers a substantial portion of costs—play critical roles in national security.
When the administration cuts funding for these initiatives, it strips essential tools from America’s diplomatic toolbox, making it harder to meet international objectives.
Moreover, the soft power aspect of American diplomacy is also being jeopardized. The American Global Alliance exemplifies the benefits of global soft power. Nye defined this concept as the capacity to foster favorable outcomes through appeal rather than coercion.
Once, many countries sought to collaborate with the US on shared challenges, but that desire appears to be waning. This shift has consequences, as recent international polls indicate a decline in America’s soft power under Trump.
Ironically, as Trump enhances military capabilities, he simultaneously undermines the diplomatic functions essential to those forces. The military and diplomacy must work in tandem, complementing each other rather than existing in silos.
Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis once remarked that without sufficient funding for the State Department, the military would simply end up needing to spend more on ammunition.
Diplomats are crucial for conflict prevention and resolution. They are the backbone that supports military efforts, whether in Europe, the Middle East, or Asia. The success of operations—like defending Taiwan—hinges not just on military presence but also on effective diplomacy to build and sustain coalitions.
For Trump, achieving a positive and enduring legacy on the international stage will require a reevaluation of the current approach to America’s diplomatic capabilities. Instead of the aggressive dismantling observed in recent months, a systematic review of how these capabilities are structured and utilized could lead to better outcomes.
A pragmatic first step would be to halt the mass layoffs of American diplomats and reassess current diplomatic programs to align with Trump’s international goals. By prioritizing diplomatic engagement and leveraging America’s ability to influence a global agenda, there remains a chance, despite the odds, for him to be recognized as a “peace superintendent.”
