A New Trump Administration
The 2024 United States presidential election has global implications. As a new administration steps into power, world leaders, allies and adversaries are closely watching to gauge the impact on foreign policy, trade, security and diplomacy. On this page, Fletcher faculty and scholars — experts in international affairs and global policy — offer their unique perspectives on what the election results signify for the world. Through their analyses, we explore the early signals and policy shifts that could reshape global dynamics in the first 100 days. Join us as we navigate the implications of these historic developments from an international standpoint.
For interview opportunities with Fletcher faculty, please contact Katie Coleman at katie.coleman@tufts.edu.
Human Rights
By Hurst Hannum, Professor Emeritus
(April 25) President Trump was no friend of international human rights during his first term, and that precedent has been followed since he returned to office. At least he has not had to withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council, since then-President Biden already decided not to seek U.S. reelection to the Council in 2024.
In a new organizational chart of the State Department released in April, the two top human rights positions were downgraded and placed within a new and lower-ranked Office of the Director for Foreign Assistance and Human Rights. It was also reported that the annual Country Reports on Human Rights, prepared by the department and mandated by Congress since the 1970s, will be less comprehensive than in prior years.
Of course, substance is more important than bureaucracy, but human rights are rarely referred to by Trump officials. The administration has ignored war crimes in Ukraine and Gaza and imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court. It dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, an essential provider of humanitarian and development assistance since the 1960s.
Given Trump’s attempts to violate constitutional rights such as due process, his dismissal of international human rights law should not be a surprise. Unfortunately, this also reflects a disdain for international law generally, including such foundational norms as territorial integrity and prohibiting the use of force. It may be a long four years.
Freedom of Speech
By Michael J. Glennon, Professor of Constitutional and International Law
(April 23) A few days after Mahmoud Khalil’s arrest, I attended a talk here at Fletcher by a visiting Israeli professor. He addressed prickly topics. A year ago, his remarks would have sparked a spirited dialogue, with barbed questions and animated debate. This time, not a single pointed question was asked.
The fear in the room was palpable. I was reminded of the lingering pall of “Soviet Times” in a morgue-like Lithuanian classroom where I taught as a Fulbright following the fall of the Soviet Union. Never was a point contested, a question posed or a hand raised.
That chill is now engulfing this country’s international students, who wonder whether they will be deported for inadvertently uttering words some government apparatchik finds objectionable. Biting their lips, deleting social media posts, avoiding provocative email, many are now leery even of speaking in online classes and Zoom calls, which are easily recorded.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that the continued presence of students such as Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk in the U.S. would cause potentially serious adverse consequences. But the real harm flows not from an innocuous op-ed written in a student paper by an obscure doctoral student. It flows from a policy of calculated repression, which is substituting strong-armed censorship for the robust, open marketplace of ideas that once made American classrooms the envy of the world.
Trade Deficits
By Michael Klein, Clayton Professor of International Economic Affairs
(April 9) President Trump has long expressed the zero-sum view that the U.S. is “ripped off” when it buys more from a country than it sells to that country. This idea animates his policy of unprecedentedly high tariffs that are supposed to reverse these deficits.
The idea that there should be balanced trade between each pair of countries is just wrong. I run a persistent trade deficit with the grocery store and a persistent trade surplus with my students – just as the U.S. has a persistent trade surplus with many other countries for high tech goods and services and a persistent trade deficit with countries that export shoes and clothing. The idea that the overall trade deficit is a drag on the economy is also incorrect. Both theory and evidence show that the economy can be growing strongly while having a trade deficit, as was the case during President Reagan’s first term.
Reversing a trade deficit is not a solution to falling manufacturing employment. Germany, for example, has persistent trade surpluses but, like the U.S., declining manufacturing employment due to the replacement of workers with machines. The high tariffs and, especially, the uncertainties associated with this policy have cratered the stock market and threaten to plunge the U.S. and many other countries into an economic downturn.
Trade and the Law
By Joel Trachtman, Professor of International Law
(April 8) The “deep state” is largely composed of expertise and the rule of law. The Trump Administration has discarded the expertise of economists, and violates the laws of the United States, as well as international law, in connection with its tariff actions. I’ll focus on the law.
Under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Congress is in charge of tariffs and trade generally. Congress has delegated some trade authority to the President under a variety of statutes, most saliently the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That statute does not refer to “tariffs” and seems to contemplate a more urgent kind of “emergency” than the one the President has asserted. But the courts have been very deferential to executive determinations.
Under the WTO and U.S. free trade agreements like the USMCA, the U.S. has bound itself to restrain its tariffs on imports — including zero tariffs on most products from free trade agreement partners. The current tariffs violate these commitments. While the agreements contain security exceptions, they too contemplate a more urgent situation, and the current situation is unlikely to qualify.
Where does this leave us? In the law of the jungle, where tariff self-harm, breaking commitments and hurting friends is likely to leave the U.S. worse off and weakened.
NATO
By Ryan Kroells, PhD Student
(March 19) Today, NATO faces renewed scrutiny amid the incoming U.S. administration’s rhetoric and strained coordination with European partners on key issues like Ukraine. Yet beyond political headlines, NATO’s most vital role lies in the routine yet essential aspects of transatlantic defense. Apart from Article 5’s mutual defense clause, NATO’s most critical role is serving as a hub for coordination and communication among allied and partner nations, enabling the execution of its three core tasks: Deterrence and Defense; Crisis Prevention and Management; Cooperative Security.
NATO operates through constant engagement between ambassadors, senior generals and professional staff under the Secretary General, coordinating with national capitals. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) meets several times a week to address critical issues, while the Military Committee provides strategic guidance. Surrounding these central bodies, working groups and committees manage operations, logistics, interoperability and partnerships.
While public focus often centers on Article 5 or the 2% Wales commitment, NATO’s true strength lies in daily coordination — driven by 32 embassies, military representatives and professional staff, safeguarding nearly 1 billion residents. Moreover, NATO’s operating budget is only $3.5 billion — well under 1% of the nearly $1.5 trillion in combined defense spending of member nations.
While NATO is not perfect, it remains an incredibly economical solution for managing the complex security challenges of the transatlantic alliance.
Spheres of Influence
By Monica Duffy Toft, Academic Dean
(March 14) Today’s major powers seek to negotiate a new global order primarily with each other, much as Allied leaders did when they redrew the world map at Yalta in 1945. If Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping reach an informal consensus that power matters more than ideological differences, they would echo Yalta by determining the sovereignty and future of nearby neighbors.
The Ukraine war — and the settlement terms that now appear to be emerging — mark a pronounced return to nineteenth century-style geopolitics in which great powers dictate terms to weaker states. Russia, along with the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, demands that Ukraine accept territorial losses and remain outside Western military alliances, an outcome that would render the country a satellite of Russia. If these pressures succeed, the final outcome will normalize the use of military force to advance national interests — and, more dangerously, reward its use.
The U.S. is no longer serving as a reliable stabilizer. Where Washington, until recently, was considered the primary check on regionally expansionist regimes, it now appears to be encouraging and even imitating those same regimes. Whether this transition ultimately returns to a predictable balance of power or inaugurates a prolonged period of instability and war will depend on how effectively spheres of influence are contested — and how far countries such as China, India, Iran, Russia and the U.S. are willing to go to secure them.
For more, read Dean Toft's essay in Foreign Affairs
Transatlantic Alliance
By Ambassador Klaus Scharioth, Professor of the Practice
(March 10) It seems like a bad dream. The very country that did more than any other to establish and strengthen the value-based international order – the U.N., the World Bank, the IMF, the ICJ, NATO, the WTO – now seems bent on destroying it. The country that encouraged Europe to work together under the Marshall Plan, defended Berlin against the Soviet Union by the Berlin Airlift and played a crucial role in overcoming the division of Germany – that country’s government no longer criticizes Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine, in spite of the obvious violation of the U.N. Charter. No resistance against Putin’s goal of reestablishing spheres of influence, although Russia had agreed to no longer pursue this idea in the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997. The U.S. withholds crucial military support to Ukraine, democratic leaders around the world are criticized, dictators are admired: a worldview upside down.
But there are encouraging developments in reaction. The United Kingdom is overcoming its costly Brexit decision and moves again closer to Europe. Defense spending is up all over Europe, military and financial aid for Ukraine increased. Germany puts her obsession about new debts on the back burner. Europe is getting its act together, but careful to leave the door open for the U.S.
Transatlantic relations are under tremendous stress. But I’m confident that, once again, the U.S. will prove its unique capacity to self-correct. It was a question that ended the McCarthy era: “have you no sense of decency?”
State of the State Department
By Ambassador Donald Heflin, Executive Director of the Murrow Center
(March 7) Personnel is policy. At the top of the State Department, there have been some good choices to fill the key jobs. Secretary Rubio has years of experience in the Senate under his belt, including service on relevant committees. The nominees to be Deputy Secretary and the Acting Undersecretary for Management have prior State Department experience. These are signs that State will be managed in a businesslike manner.
An intake class for new Foreign Service officers was ongoing when the Administration took office and was allowed to continue. While an intake for Consular Fellows that fell squarely within the 90 day hiring freeze was cancelled, there have been no indications as to whether future intake classes will take place.
Things to watch out for: if a new intake class happens this spring or summer, that would be a sign that the personnel cuts seen at some other agencies aren’t planned for State. If more than a few embassies are closed, that would mean yielding ground overseas to the Chinese and Russians, and probably result in the forced retirement of Ambassadors from the closed embassies. How large will the budget cuts be? And pay attention to the rhetoric. Thus far, State has not been subjected to the withering criticism directed at other agencies such as USAID and Social Security.
Korea Security
By Col. Kenneth Hills, PhD Student
(February 25) While the burgeoning relationship between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) concerns national security professionals, the integrity of the Republic of Korea (ROK) – U.S. alliance remains ironclad. The ROK-U.S. alliance is integral to Northeast Asia's peace, security, and prosperity. The bond was forged during the Korean War and has endured for over 71 years.
Over 28,500 U.S. service members serve on Freedom’s Frontier, committed to their ROK allies and encapsulated in the slogan “We Go Together.” This past October, the ROK Minister of National Defense and the U.S. Secretary of Defense reaffirmed their obligations to each other during the 56th Security Consultative Meeting, including enhancing extended deterrence and advancing alliance capabilities.
The concern over the extraterritorial deployment of Korean People’s Army (KPA) soldiers to Russia is warranted, but it is not without precedent. During the Vietnam War, Korean People’s Army Air Force pilots flew combat missions from North Vietnamese bases.
Furthermore, North Koreans serving in Russian or Soviet military units have a long lineage. The DPRK’s founder, Kim Il Sung, served in the Red Army during World War II. Nam Il, cosigner of the Armistice Agreement, fought in the Battle of Stalingrad. Notably, Aleksandr Min’s bravery was observed at the Battle of Kursk, and he was awarded the “Hero of the Soviet Union,” equivalent to the U.S. Medal of Honor.
Despite the evolving security relationship between the Russian Federation and the DPRK, the ROK-US alliance stands “Ready to Fight Tonight.”
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official guidance or position of the United States Government, the Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, or the United States Space Force.
SWFs and Global Finance
By Patrick Schena, Adj Professor of International Business
(February 17) In early February, President Trump announced a plan to establish a U.S. sovereign wealth fund.
For many, the term “sovereign wealth fund” conjures up images of “dark” pools of state capital sloshing around global financial markets. Some 20 years ago, security concerns prompted by fears of extra-commercial objectives fueled a Congressional backlash. This motivated the Bush Treasury to push for greater SWF transparency. The result was the emergence of a governance framework for SWFs, which coalesced otherwise unaffiliated investors into a loosely aligned cohort whose number (90-100) and assets ($13 T) grew exponentially.
SWFs are a diverse lot with only about one-fifth by number befitting the image of a “mega-fund.” While originally “wealth” managers, predominantly in emerging economies, many today have strategic objectives, which are largely domestic, particularly those in developed market economies, including Italy, France, Spain and Ireland.
While intriguing, the idea of a U.S. SWF initiated by Trump under executive order on February 3, 2025 is today aspirational at best. The order reads like a multiple-choice question: a) fiscal sustainability, b) lessening the burden of taxes, c) establishing economic security for future generations, d) promoting U.S. economic and strategic leadership, whose intended answer – “all of the above” – is unwittingly missing. SWFs are purpose-driven investors. Any serious attempt at establishing a U.S. fund must begin with an agreed policy purpose and robust governance model or risk failure from the start.
European Security
By Arik Burakovsky, Associate Director of the Russia and Eurasia Program and the Hitachi Center for Technology and International Affairs
(February 13) Trump's strategy for the Russia-Ukraine war appears to emphasize direct negotiations alongside economic pressure on Russia, aiming to freeze territorial lines while offering "European and non-European" peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance to Ukraine. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth signaled a U.S. shift from open-ended military support to seeking "an enduring peace," expressing concerns over economic strain and the need to refocus on defending the homeland and deterring China.
European allies remain wary of rewarding Russian aggression but recognize the unsustainable burden of an attritional war with no end in sight. The prolonged conflict has fueled inflation, energy instability, and political polarization across the continent. While European countries have increased defense spending significantly, they still lack the industrial capacity to sustain Ukraine’s military effort indefinitely without U.S. backing.
Any diplomatic settlement carries considerable risks. A frozen conflict might leave Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian offensives while fracturing NATO’s unity. To prevent a repeat of failed ceasefires under the Minsk agreements, robust security guarantees and long-term commitments to Ukraine’s defense are essential. Trump’s approach is a high-stakes gamble. If mismanaged, it could embolden Russia, destabilize NATO and further harm Ukraine. However, if handled scrupulously, a ceasefire could allow Europe to strengthen its defenses and economic resilience while preserving a free Ukraine and avoiding further bloodshed and escalation. As U.S. priorities change, Europe faces a future where it must take greater responsibility for its own security.
Trade and the Fashion Industry
By Kenneth Pucker, Professor of the Practice
(February 12) The new U.S. administration views deficits as evidence of misdoings by trade partners. The blunt remedy, it seems, is tariffs. This makes China, the country with whom the U.S. has its largest trade deficit, a clear target. Trump has imposed a ten percent tariff on all China sourced imports. He also cancelled the de minimis trade exemption, which allowed packages valued at less than $800 to enter the U.S. duty free.
These actions are partly aimed at Chinese-made “instant fashion” supplied by brands including Shein and Temu. By leveraging an AI-enabled, tightly coupled, outsourced supply chain, these brands have radically sped up and cheapened the fashion cycle. Shein introduces as many new styles in one week as Zara does in a year, offering its fossil fuel-based synthetic products at prices fifty percent lower than Zara and H&M. This business model enabled Shein to grow by more than 20 times over eight years and become the first fashion brand to reach $40 billion in sales.
While some of Shein and Temu’s low prices are enabled by abuse of the de minimis exemption (which was originally conceived to allow U.S. tourists to send packages home from travels abroad), closing this loophole will not slow the growth of instant fashion, restore U.S. apparel production or address the consequential damage of these brands.
To make that happen, new regulation (such as the pending New York Fashion Act) that internalizes social and environmental externalities is needed.
Climate Adaptation
By Bethany Tietjen, Predoctoral Research Fellow at the Climate Policy Lab
(February 10) The Trump administration set its tone on climate adaptation by revoking President Biden’s key climate-focused executive orders on its first day in office. One major resilience-focused order that was rescinded was Executive Order 14030 on Climate Related Financial Risk, which, among other actions, reestablished the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS).
The FFRMS was designed to ensure federal investments in floodplains were resilient to future flooding risks. Revoking the FFRMS undermines long-term disaster preparedness and risk reduction efforts. It will likely result in significant costs for American taxpayers over time as climate-related disasters continue to occur.
Globally, the administration’s dismantling of USAID will have repercussions for climate adaptation finance. Since USAID is a major source of bilateral adaptation funding, reducing support will hinder critical adaptation projects in many countries, increasing instability, poverty and migration in areas experiencing the worst effects of climate change.
Domestically, cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency could further stall progress on climate adaptation, as the agency has been a key source of support for state and local resilience initiatives under prior administrations.
Despite these setbacks, it is unlikely that the Trump administration will completely abandon climate adaptation efforts. Instead, these initiatives may be reframed under terms like “coastal resilience” or “wildfire resilience,” focusing on disaster preparedness while distancing from broader climate change narratives.
Gaza
By Eileen Babbitt, Professor of the Practice of International Conflict Management
(February 7) President Trump stunned the world and his own team by proclaiming in a February 4 news conference that the U.S. was prepared to take over Gaza, clear the rubble and build a “Riviera of the Middle East.”
Global reaction to Trump’s statement was overwhelmingly negative, with the exception of extreme right-wing actors in Israel such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, denounced the plan as completely unacceptable and reiterated support for a two-state solution. Jordan and Egypt said they would not accept any Gazans into their countries.
As with many of Trump’s stated plans, the immediate question is, “Will he really do this?” In this case, the more important challenge is understanding the real purpose of Trump making this announcement. I believe it is two-fold: to demonstrate unconditional support for Netanyahu in his agenda to marginalize Palestinians and stop progress towards their statehood, and to force the hand of Arab countries to foot the bill for rebuilding Gaza and deterring Hamas. The former is a tragedy both for Palestinians and for Israel itself; the latter could be a plus if it materializes, but this is far from certain.
It remains to be seen if this move produces anything other than confusion and further pain for Gazans. Its immediate impact has been to bring any “normalization” of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel to a halt and to demonstrate Trump’s belief that the world is his for the taking.
Offshore Wind
By Barbara Kates-Garnick, Professor of Practice
(January 24) The energy transition is a complex global and long-term undertaking involving a range of established and new actors, the operation of energy markets, investments in technology and innovation, and major policy initiatives. The apocalyptic impact of climate change from the burning cities, oppressive heat, record flooding and droughts demands an ongoing massive global commitment to greenhouse gas (GHG) and methane reduction. Trump’s initial and underlying thesis is that there is a binary choice between fossil fuels and renewables (in his words between “drill baby drill” and “intermittent or unreliable” resources) and that the transition is based on decisions of “deep state” bureaucrats rather than the market. Neither of his assumptions are credible.
One of the casualties of his false choice dichotomy is likely to be Offshore Wind (OSW). For coastal states, at the end of fossil fuel pipelines committed to legislated GHG reduction goals, OSW presents an opportunity for clean energy, jobs and economic development. In the U.S., OSW is at a nascent point of development, both in terms of supply chain manufacturing, regulatory oversight, installation and costs. To inhibit its development at this stage is to destroy an economic and environmental opportunity that will in the future lower costs.
There is not a binary choice between fossil fuel and clean energy. The energy transition will be long, and as we transition, technology will enable us to deal with carbon and methane.
Energy
By Kelly Sims Gallagher, Dean of The Fletcher School
(January 23) Due to three major pieces of legislation passed in 2022, U.S. firms have clawed their way back in several advanced technology industries, including artificial intelligence, semiconductors, energy storage, renewables and electric vehicles. According to the U.S. International Trade Administration, the U.S. became the leading destination for foreign clean energy investment in 2023, accumulating $108 billion in the last decade. Why put all of this useful investment at risk?
To compete on the global stage, the U.S. should stay the course and reap the benefits of first-mover advantage, increased exports, expanded market share and more high-quality American jobs. Otherwise, Chinese and other foreign firms will surge ahead in capturing global markets while the U.S. falls behind, again.
Expanded oil and gas production is not in conflict with expanded renewables production and electric vehicles. All enhance energy and economic security. In 2023, the U.S. became the world’s largest producer of crude oil – larger than Russia and Saudi Arabia. It is also now the world’s largest natural gas supplier. The U.S. oil and gas industry is arguably stronger than at any point in history, hardly threatened by renewables.
When one adds the real threat of climate change to the calculus, then it is simply foolish to slow down clean energy production. Moreover, countries that remain committed to addressing climate change will be buying clean energy fuels and technologies. Surely the U.S. wants to serve those markets, rather than cede them to China.
The Global Order
By Chidi Odinkalu, Professor of the Practice of International Human Rights Law
(January 23) Despite appearances of an evolving landscape, the U.S. remains the anchor country of our contemporary global order. What it does is of immense consequence around the world. This is an important time to be alive as the new administration in Washington beds in.
The feeling is not unfounded that the broad policy approach of the administration could be to reduce major international issues to the stuff of real estate transactions. With propositions such as the acquisition of Canada or the alternation of sovereignty over the Gulf of Mexico, Panama Canal, and Greenland, many will be forgiven for thinking that U.S. foreign policy is now anchored on expanding the sovereign real estate portfolio of perhaps the most immensely endowed country in history.
This will be sobering for many around the world. Africa knows a thing or two about maps being re-drawn by folks elsewhere without input from those most affected. 140 years ago, that was exactly what happened to the African continent at the Berlin Conference.
We'll need a new vocabulary beyond "exceptionalism" or "isolation" to describe the extent of the chill that this could throw on international relations. Hopefully, this could also be a boon for the discipline of international law and diplomacy, if it serves the purpose of inspiring desire for a more predictable framework of international comity.
Syria
By Tamirace Fakhoury, Associate Professor of International Politics and Conflict
(January 4) With the toppling of the Bashar al-Assad regime, the U.S. must reposition its policies towards Syria. The Trump administration will need to address three critical policy areas in the immediate term: political engagement, sanctions and reconstruction.
Since Syria’s lethal conflict broke out in 2011, U.S. foreign policy has oscillated between half-hearted engagement and reluctance to engage. The U.S. must now adopt a more decisive stance towards Syria’s political transition. Analysts have urged the U.S. and other Western powers to learn from past experiences in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. imposed various sanctions on the Assad regime, notably the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019. This act aimed to isolate the Syrian regime and its allies militarily and economically. Linked to this is the Assad Regime Anti-Normalization Act of 2023. With the regime’s fall, there is a general call from international and regional actors to lift sanctions against Syria. The U.S. is cautiously observing events, deeming discussions about sanctions relief to be premature. However, the U.S. should coordinate with its transatlantic allies on the timing for lifting sanctions and commitments needed from Syria’s new leaders.
Lastly, the administration must consider Syria’s reconstruction and recovery. Trump should act together with allies and the U.N. to support a Syrian-owned transition, align aid with the humanitarian-development-peace nexus (HDP) and encourage inclusive social and economic dialogues. These are preliminary but essential steps for the U.S. to play a benevolent role in a turbulent Middle East.
Maritime Security
By Rockford Weitz, Professor of the Practice in Maritime Studies
(December 27) Maritime security policies will change after the transition from Biden to Trump, particularly on U.S. sanctions against Iran and U.S. military force posture in strategic chokepoints such as the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz.
In February 2021, the Biden administration de-listed the Houthis in Yemen as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entity and as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). In response to Houthi attacks on commercial shipping that started in October 2023, the Biden administration put the Houthis back on the SDGT list in January 2024, but not the FTO list, which would have triggered sanctions against their backer, Iran. Yet the Houthis continued to attack commercial shipping in the Red Sea through 2024.
We can expect the Trump administration to redesignate the Houthis as a FTO shortly after taking office. This will rachet up sanctions against the Houthis and their backer Iran. Trump will also likely use U.S. naval and air power to strike the Houthis within Yemen to deter them from further attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. Trump may try to get Saudi Arabia and the UAE to help secure shipping in the Red Sea and Strait of Hormuz, including by removing Biden administration restrictions on arms sales to both countries.
East Asia
By Aram Hur, Assistant Professor of Political Science
(December 18) Trump’s Asia policy boils down to two things: hawkish against China and a “prove your worth” stance. Trump threatens massive tariffs on products coming from China. He also wants to withdraw American troops from South Korea unless it pays more—a leftover agenda from his first term—and is unlikely to promise anything to Taiwan unless it does the same.
In stark contrast to Biden’s approach of building a democratic alliance against China, Trump will bring a tit-for-tat pragmatism. His hawkishness against China will not imply support for Taiwan in the event of cross-strait conflict. South Korea’s status as a long-time, democratic U.S. ally won’t buy any grace period for withdrawing American troops, even as the country stands vulnerable from the leadership vacuum left after president Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment following a brief martial law decree. North Korea’s mutual defense treaty with Russia will likely bring Kim Jong-un back into the fold of strongman leaders Trump praises, including Putin. Japan’s special relationship with the U.S. will go from assumed to conditional, depending on where it stands in Trump’s economic war against China, which carries collateral for Japan’s economy.
The result is a more atomized and internally competitive East Asia vying for U.S. support. This might achieve Trump’s “America First” vision during his term, but at the long-term cost of destabilizing a region that is critical to U.S. legitimacy. Sticks rarely buy respect, which is the currency America needs most.
Russia Diplomacy
By Mikhail Troitskiy, Visiting Professor
(December 10) Fifty-five years ago, President Richard Nixon instructed his diplomats to convince the Soviet Union that he was a “madman” who might escalate the Vietnam War at any moment. Today, Donald Trump appears to be adopting a similar approach. During the campaign, he signaled that he may apply maximum pressure on Moscow to end its war in Ukraine if Russia resists the kind of compromise his new administration would favor.
As president-elect, Trump and his transition team have a limited window to explore a possible ceasefire without bearing full responsibility for the outcome. Members of his team acknowledge that the outgoing Biden administration’s heightened pressure on Russia aligns with their strategy of strengthening the U.S. negotiating position before Trump takes office. This contrasts sharply with Trump’s first administration, when his advisor Michael Flynn privately urged Moscow not to escalate in response to the Obama administration’s expulsion of Russian diplomats.
Notably, the handover from Biden to Trump is unfolding without overt hostility. This relative harmony may confirm Moscow’s concerns that both administrations are coordinating their tactics, leaving Russia with fewer opportunities to exploit differences in U.S. policy.
In 1969, the Soviet Union never truly believed Nixon’s “madman” act. Today, Russia must decide how far it can push without forfeiting whatever goodwill remains in a Trump-led Washington. Excessive brinkmanship risks eroding support within the Russian ruling class, placing additional stress on the Kremlin and potentially undermining its position as it navigates the Trump era.
Migration
By Katrina Burgess, Professor of Political Economy
(December 9) President-elect Donald Trump is promising to quickly close the U.S. southern border and deport the nearly 12 million immigrants without legal authorization to remain in the country.
As a scholar of migration in the Americas, my research shows that Trump’s approach is unlikely to stop migrants from trying to enter the U.S. but very likely to enrich criminals. In 2023, my research team and I interviewed over 130 migrants in Colombia, Costa Rica and Mexico. What we found is that deterrence isn’t working because of shifts in who is migrating and why they are leaving home.
Until 2011, the vast majority of illegal border crossers were Mexicans, mostly young men seeking higher incomes to support their families. Today, more than 60% of the migrants who cross the U.S. border without legal authorization are from places other than Mexico, including Central America, Venezuela, Ecuador and Haiti. Forty percent of them are parents traveling with children.
Many of these migrants are fleeing chronic violence, rampant corruption, natural disasters or economic collapse. For these migrants, it is worth the risk of being kidnapped, dying in the desert or being deported to escape a desperate situation.
While prevention through deterrence has not stopped migrants, it has enriched smugglers, corrupt government officials and other criminals who take advantage of vulnerable migrants on their way to the U.S. border. According to one estimate, smuggling revenues in the Americas grew from $500 million in 2018 to $13 billion in 2022.
For more, read Professor Burgess's piece in The Conversation
Tariffs
By Michael Klein, Clayton Professor of International Economic Affairs
(December 7) President-elect Trump plans to impose across-the-board tariffs, with especially high tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, the top three countries of origin of U.S. imports. Tariffs are like a sales tax that will raise prices for consumers on imports and on domestically-produced goods that compete with those imports – and, unlike a sales tax, the higher prices of domestically-produced goods will not provide any tax revenue.
In a world with international supply chains, tariffs also hurt American companies. For example, steel tariffs raise production costs for companies that produce things like refrigerators, cars and dishwashers; for every job in America that produces steel there are 80 jobs for which steel is used as an input. Jobs in other sectors will be threatened by retaliatory trade restrictions, as occurred with the retaliatory tariffs imposed on American agricultural products during the first Trump Administration. This retaliation prompted the Administration to provide unprecedented levels of financial support to farmers, so it was a net drain on the government’s finances. Tariffs also reduce efficiency and increase uncertainty which makes it difficult for companies to plan.
For all these reasons, there is a broad consensus among economists that high, across-the-board tariffs are a bad idea.
American Statecraft
By Daniel Drezner, Professor of International Politics
(November 19) Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement will define U.S. foreign policy for the next four years. The U.S. will speak with one voice on foreign policy, and that voice will be Trump’s.
There are likely to be three significant differences between Trump’s first- and second-term foreign policies. First, Trump will come into office with a more homogeneous national security team than he had in 2017. Second, the state of the world in 2025 is rather different than it was in 2017. And third, foreign actors will have a much better read of Donald Trump.
It will not be surprising if foreign benefactors approach Trump’s coterie of advisers with implicit and explicit promises of lucrative deals after their time in office – as long as they play ball while in power. Combine this with the expected role that billionaires such as Elon Musk will play in Trump 2.0, and one can foresee a dramatic increase in the corruption of U.S. foreign policy.
Trump will navigate world politics with greater confidence this time around. Whether he will have any better luck bending the world to his “America first” brand is another question entirely. What is certain, however, is that the era of American exceptionalism has ended. Under Trump, U.S. foreign policy will cease promoting long-standing American ideals. That, combined with an expected surge of corrupt foreign policy practices, will leave the U.S. looking like a garden-variety great power.
For more, read Professor Drezner's essay in Foreign Affairs
Professor Daniel Drezner appears on public radio program All Things Considered to discuss the economic decision making at the White House. (April 8)
Professor Michael Klein speaks to The Boston Globe about Trump's trade war and its historical precedents. (April 4)
Professor Barbara Kates-Garnick appears on public radio to discuss the impact of federal policy changes on the wind industry. (March 28)
Visiting scholar Pavel Luzin speaks to ABC News about Ukrainian military drone capacity and how it may shape talks with Trump and Putin. (March 26)
Professor Daniel Drezner provides analysis to NBC News about Secretary of State Marco Rubio's political evolution. (March 21)
Academic Dean Monica Duffy Toft pens an essay for Foreign Affairs on how Trump may revive "spheres of influence" in geopolitics. (March 13)
Daniel Maxwell, director of Fletcher's MAHA program, speaks to CNN about the Trump administration's changes to USAID and their impact on famine monitoring. (March 9)
In an interview with NPR, Professor Daniel Drezner analyzes the political evolution of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. (March 8)
Senior fellow Tim Poitier writes a piece for Cyprus Mail on the risks associated with Trump's Russia diplomacy. (March 8)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen describes how Trump's tariff threats have reshaped the Canadian federal election. (March 7)
In an interview with Commonwealth Beacon, Professor Barbara Kates-Garnick assesses decisions from Trump's EPA. (March 7)
Dean Kelly Sims Gallagher speaks to The New York Times about Trump's impact on clean energy industries. (March 6)
Professor Chris Miller appears on CNBC's Squawk Box to describe how the chip industry is reacting to Trump's economic policies. (March 6)
Professor Chris Miller authors a piece for Financial Times on how the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company is navigating Trump's tarrifs. (March 6)
European Council on Foreign Relations
Alumnus Rafael Loss writes analysis for the European Council on Foreign Relations on how the continent can respond to Trump's shifts on the Russia-Ukraine war. (March 5)
Professor Klaus Scharioth, a former German Ambassador to the U.S., appears on German television program Phoenix Runde to discuss European security in the Trump era. (March 4)
Professor Chris Miller speaks to Wired about the Trump administration's approach to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. (March 4)
Dean Kelly Sims Gallagher tells The Washington Post that Chinese advances in green technologies could result in a declining U.S. share of global energy markets. (March 3)
Professor Michael Klein speaks to Barron's to provide an economist's view on the Trump trade policies. (March 3)
Professor Patrick Schena offers commentary to Courthouse News about the feasibility of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund. (March 3)
Professor Eileen Babbitt speaks to Business Insider to assess the Trump-Zelensky meeting through the lens of negotiation strategy. (March 2)
Alumnus Winston Lord appears on NPR to analyze how a U.S.-European split may benefit China. (February 28)
Arik Burakovsky, Associate Director of the Fletcher Russia and Eurasia Program, appears on 7 News Boston to discuss the Oval Office meeting between Trump and Zelensky. (February 28)
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty
In a piece for RFL / RL, alumnus Mike Eckel analyzes the minerals deal proposed by the Trump administration for Ukraine. (February 28)
Alumnus Peter Rough hosts a conversation with E.U. Foreign Minister Kaja Kallas on the U.S.-E.U. relationship. (February 27)
Alumnus Ariel Cohen writes a piece for Forbes about the Trump administration's focus on LNG exports. (February 27)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen analyzes cuts to the federal civil service. (February 26)
In an interview for the Values & Interests podcasts, former USAID administrator Andrew Natsios cites research from Professor Alex de Waal about the agency's impact on reducing famine. (February 26).
Jon Stewart interviews alumna Rupa Bhattacharyya, who he worked with on 9/11 issues, about DOGE and its cuts to the federal civil service. (February 25)
Senior fellow Tara Sonenshine speaks to The Washington Post about how embassies protect U.S. citizens from anti-Americanism abroad. (February 25)
A piece for RealClearMarkets on Trump's tariff policies references Professor Daniel Drezner's analysis of U.S. economic security strategy. (February 25)
After an executive order to close the US Institute of Peace, senior fellow Tara Sonenshine authored a article in US News & World Report about the institute. (February 25)
Former visiting professor Volodymyr Dubovyk speaks to Rolling Stone to offer a Ukrainian perspective on Trump's Russia talks. (February 24)
In his column for Foreign Policy, Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti how Trump and Musk are impacting investment growth for the AI industry. (February 23)
Together with Edward Fishman, Professor Chris Miller appears on the Intelligence Squared podcast to discuss U.S. sanctions policy. (February 23)
Professor Alex de Waal speaks to NPR about the shutdown of FEWS NET, a famine monitoring tool, amid cuts to U.S. foreign aid. (February 21)
Australian public broadcaster ABC News interviews Professor Chris Miller about whether U.S.-China tariffs present an economic opportunity for India. (February 21)
Visiting professor Mikhail Troitskiy appears on the Nigerian news program Borderlines to discuss the new American approach to negotiations with Russia and Ukraine. (February 21)
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Dean Kelly Sims Gallagher and Professor Daniel Drezner appear on a Carnegie panel with U.S. Senator Chris Coons, discussing U.S. foreign policy under Trump. (February 20)
In his column for World Politics Review, Professor Daniel Drezner describes Trump's effect on U.S. geopolitical competition with Russia and China. (February 20)
Academic Dean Monica Duffy Toft authors a piece for The Conversation on the historical echoes in Trump's threats towards Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine and Panama. (February 20)
Romanian newspaper Adevărul interviews Alumnus Greg Scarlatoiu, who served in the first Trump administration, about Trump's diplomatic strategy. (February 20)
Senior fellow Donald Heflin, executive director of Fletcher's Murrow Center, authors a piece for The Conversation on how U.S. presidents have approached global alliances. (February 20)
Academic Dean Monica Duffy Toft appears in a video for the Quincy Institute to discuss U.S. policy on the Russia-Ukraine war. (February 20)
In an interview with Meduza, visiting professor Mikhail Troitsky discusses U.S. negotiations over Russia's war in Ukraine. (February 19)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen assesses the possibility of a U.S. government shutdown. (February 18)
A piece in Taipei Times about Trump's effect on the U.S.-China chip war references the work of Professor Chris Miller. (February 18)
In comments for ABC News, Professor Daniel Drezner analyzes Trump's threats to Egypt and Jordan over his Gaza plan. (February 14)
Fletcher alumnus Adham Sahloul offers comments to The National about the effect of U.S. policy on Syrian reconstruction efforts. (February 14)
Professor Barbara Kates-Garnick speaks to CommonWealth Beacon about the end to federal grants from the Diesel Emission Reduction Act. (February 13)
Professor Daniel Drezner appears on the Rachman Review podcast from Financial Times to discuss what the rest of the world can expect from the Trump presidency. (February 12)
Professor Tom Dannenbaum speaks to ABC News about the legal repercussions of Trump's proposal to forcibly remove civilians from Gaza. (February 12)
Fletcher alumnus Timothy Aeppel reports for Reuters on how Trump's trade policies will impact costs for American manufacturers. (February 12)
Professor Michael Klein provides analysis to The Washington Post about the "winners" and "losers" of Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs. (February 11)
In a piece on Trump's climate policy, The New Yorker magazine cites analysis on offshore wind from Professor Barbara Kates-Garnick. (February 11)
Professor Chris Miller appears on the Lawfare podcast to discuss American industrial capacity, a major policy focus of the new administration. (February 11)
As Trump begins talks with Vladimir Putin on the Russia-Ukraine war, Euromaidan Press cites visiting scholar Pavel Luzin's assessment of Russian military capacity. (February 11)
Professor Daniel Drezner appears on Canadian television news to discuss Trump's use of the "madman" strategy. (February 11)
Alumnus Aris Kefalogiannis authors an article for Greek news site Capital on how the European Union will react to Trump's tariff policy. (February 11)
Professor Barbara Kates-Garnick speaks to Canary Media about Trump's energy policy and its impact on offshore wind projects. (February 11)
Senior fellow Tara Sonenshine writes a piece for The Conversation on whether American political divisions reflect social attitudes. (February 11)
Ahead of Narendra Modi's visit to meet Donald Trump, Murrow Center executive director Donald Heflin speaks to Voice of America about India’s role in U.S.-China competition. (February 10)
The Week cites Professor Patrick Schena's analysis on sovereign wealth funds, explaining Trump's proposal to create one for the U.S. (February 10)
Fletcher alumnus Timothy Aeppel reports for Reuters on how American manufacturing companies are responding to Trump's tariffs. (February 10)
Professor Kenneth Pucker speaks to Trellis about Trump's tariffs and their impact on the fashion industry. (February 10)
Cinco Días, a sister publication of Spanish newspaper El País, interviews Professor Patrick Schena about Trump's proposal to create a U.S. sovereign wealth fund. (February 9)
Professor Patrick Schena authors a piece in The Conversation about the feasibility of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund. (February 8)
Professor Alex de Waal speaks to Reuters on cuts to USAID will impact global efforts to fight hunger. (February 7)
Professor Patrick Schena speaks to Canadian public broadcaster CBC about Trump's proposal to create a U.S. sovereign wealth fund. (February 7)
Faculty affiliate Alvin Camba provides comments for South China Morning Post on U.S.-China competition for influence in Panama. (February 7)
In a podcast interview, former USAID administrator Andrew Natsios references research by Professor Alex de Waal when describing the agency's impact on global hunger. (February 7)
Lecturer Diane Ryan speaks to HuffPost about Trump's executive order disbanding student affinity groups at the West Point military academy. (February 7)
A piece in Dhaka Courier about the Trump administration's relations with Bangladesh cites analysis from Professor Tom Dannenbaum and alumnus Michael Kugelman. (February 7)
Professor Daniel Drezner speaks to The New Republic about how changes to USAID could impact American soft power. (February 6)
Senior fellow Mulugeta G. Berhe authors a piece for The Conversation on how actors including the U.S. can support a peace process for Sudan. (February 6)
Dean Kelly Sims Gallagher provides commentary in The New York Times on the connection between trade policy and climate change. (February 4)
An article in The Straits Times cites Professor Daniel Drezner's analysis of Donald Trump and the "madman" strategy. (February 4)
In a piece for The Baltimore Sun, senior fellow Tara Sonenshine explores how female leaders have interacted with the Trump administration. (February 4)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen criticizes the administration's hostility towards USAID. (February 4)
Professor Michael Klein comments to Vogue Business about how Trump's tariff policies could affect the fashion industry. (February 3)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti offers comments to Newsweek about the Trump administration's relationship with the tech industry. (February 3)
Alumnus David W. Wise writes a piece for RealClear Defense on the U.S. approach to the U.K.-Mauritius Chagos Islands agreement, mentioning Secretary of State Marco Rubio's criticism of the deal. (February 3)
In an interview with SwissInfo, Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti addresses U.S.-China AI competition and how technology policy will evolve under President Trump. (February 2)
Fletcher MALD student Syed Faizan co-writes an opinion piece for Al Jazeera on the fissures within the MAGA movement over H1-B high-skilled work visas. (February 1)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen explores the challenges of cutting federal spending without creating political blowback. (January 31)
In a piece on Trump's tariff threats, Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail quotes from Professor Daniel Drezner's analysis for Foreign Policy. (January 31)
GMAP lecturer Col. Diane Ryan, also an Associate Dean at Tisch College, appeared on PBS NewsHour to discuss the changes to Pentagon diversity programs. (January 28)
Professor Michael Klein and EconoFact joined The Journalist's Resource to co-host a panel discussion on the impact of U.S. tariff hikes. (January 28)
Professor Jette Steen Knudsen wrote a piece in Danish business newspaper Børsen on Trump's decision to revoke an 1965 order banning workplace discrimination by federal contractors. (January 28)
Dean Kelly Sims Gallagher provides comments to The New York Times on Trump's approach to clean energy. (January 24)
Professor Daniel Drezner authors an article in World Politics Review on how fear of a U.S.-China war may make a war more likely. (January 21)
Senior fellow Tara Sonenshine and alumna Farah Pandith co-write a piece for The Baltimore Sun on the controversies over U.S. policy towards TikTok. (January 21)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen criticizes the executive orders Trump issued on inauguration day. (January 21)
Professor Daniel Drezner appeared on Bloomberg Television's The China Show to discuss Trump's tariff threats towards major U.S. trading partners. (January 20)
An article in The Week on Trump and the "madman" strategy quotes Professor Daniel Drezner's Foreign Policy piece on the subject. (January 20)
An opinion piece in The Guardian offers a critical perspective on the liberal international order, referencing analysis from Academic Dean Monica Duffy Toft and her work on Fletcher's Military Intervention Project. (January 19)
French newspaper Sud Ouest analyzes Trump's stature on the world stage, citing Professor Daniel Drezner's previous comments to The Wall Street Journal. (January 19)
Professor Daniel Drezner appears on Indian Diplomacy, a program for India's public broadcaster, to discuss how Trump will reshape U.S. foreign policy. (January 18)
The Indian Express interviews Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti, a regular contributor to the newspaper, for a video previewing Trump's second term. (January 18)
A piece in Milenio on Mexico's role in the U.S.-China chip war cites the work of Professor Chris Miller. (January 18)
Together with historian Niall Ferguson, Professor Chris Miller co-writes an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal, advocating for Trump to use frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine aid. (January 17)
Fletcher alumnus Vasilis Petropoulos authors a piece in Greek newspaper To Vima about European geopolitical strategy for the Trump era. (January 17)
In a piece for The Conversation, Professor Abiodun Williams explains the role of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, ahead of confirmation hearings for Trump nominee Elise Stefanik. (January 16)
Professor Alex de Waal pens an article for U.S. News & World Report on the Biden administration's declaration of genocide in Sudan. (January 15)
In a piece for Foreign Policy, Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti analyzes policy changes announced by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in the wake of Trump's election victory. (January 15)
With Pentagon nominee Pete Hegseth's statements on women in combat under scrutiny, Professor Abigail Linnington speaks to The World about the role of women in the U.S. military. (January 14)
Professor Daniel Drezner speaks to The Wall Street Journal about Trump's negotiation tactics towards Denmark over Greenland. (January 14)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen explores how Afghanistan will shape Biden's legacy. (January 14)
Alumnus Nayan Seth writes an piece, featuring comments from Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti, about the Biden administration decision to restrict India's access to AI chips. (January 14)
Academic Dean Monica Duffy Toft pens an explainer article in The Conversation on the role of the U.S. Secretary of State, ahead of confirmation hearings for Trump nominee Marco Rubio. (January 13)
Visiting Professor Mikhail Troitskiy authors a piece for 19FortyFive about the prospects for Russia-Ukraine peace negotiation as Trump enters the White House. (January 13)
In a column for The Indian Express, Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti explores the debate within the MAGA movement over H-1B visas. (January 13)
Yahoo Finance interviews Professor Chris Miller about the Biden administration's restrictions on AI chips and how they affect American chipmaker Nvidia. (January 13)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen criticizes how Trump and other political figures have responded to the California wildfires. (January 13)
Professor Chris Miller speaks to Taiwan's CommonWealth magazine about how Trump will reshape the U.S.-China chip war. (January 13)
NPR interviews Professor Daniel Drezner to explore how the "madman strategy" explains Trump's rhetoric towards Canada, Greenland and Panama. (January 11)
An article for The Edge Malaysia covers Professor Chris Miller's presentation in Kuala Lumpur on Malaysia's role in the U.S.-China chip wars. (January 9)
A Vox piece on Trump and the "madman theory" cites Professor Daniel Drezner's article for Foreign Policy. (January 9)
Professor Daniel Drezner authors an article for Foreign Policy on Donald Trump's use of the "madman" strategy associated with Richard Nixon. (January 7)
Alumnus David W. Wise writes a piece for RealClear History exploring the historical legacy of the January 6 Capitol attack. (January 6)
A Bloomberg piece describes Wall Street's retreat away from sustainability pledges, citing analysis from Professor Ken Pucker. (January 5)
Professor Aram Hur co-authors an article for The Hill on the lessons for American democracy from South Korea's political crisis. (January 3)
Alumnus Shashi Tharoor authors a piece for Project Syndicate on the dispute among Trump supporters about immigration from India. (January 2)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen examines Joe Biden's complex legacy. (December 31)
A Reuters report on hunger in Gaza and the U.S. policy response includes quotes from Professors Tom Dannenbaum and Alex de Waal. (December 30)
Marketplace interviews Professor Chris Miller about an investigation into Chinese trade practices, announced by the Biden administration during the transition. (December 23)
Fletcher alumna Nahid Bhadelia speaks to The Boston Globe about the policy changes that scientific researchers anticipate from Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (December 23)
A letter from Fletcher alumnus Huang Wei-ping, published in Taipei Times, describes how the U.S. and Taiwan can cooperate on security issues in Trump's second term. (December 21)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen explores how a government shut down will affect public services. (December 20)
A Slate piece on Biden and Trump's approaches to global democracy and autocracy quotes analysis from Professor Daniel Drezner (December 20)
Axios interviews Professor Chris Miller about a dramatic executive order on AI chips being planned the Biden administration. (December 18)
Reuters journalist Timothy Aeppel, a Fletcher alumnus, explores how the toymaking industry is responding to Trump's tariff threats. (December 18)
Professor Chris Miller speaks to Yahoo Finance about Trump's plans for the chip sector. (December 16)
Professor Aram Hur speaks to The Wall Street Journal about the roots of South Korea's political crisis and how they resembles the fractious domestic divides in the U.S. (December 14)
The Wall Street Journal quotes Professor Daniel Drezner in a piece about Russia's failure in Syria and how it may affect negotiations with the U.S. over Ukraine. (December 13)
Professor Chris Miller appears on the Bloomberg Businessweek podcast to discuss the future of semiconductor policy under President Trump. (December 13)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti speaks to The New York Times about the criminal charges against Indian conglomerate Adani Group, which had pledged to invest $10 billion in the U.S. after Trump's election. (December 12)
In an article for The Free Press, alumnus Elliot Ackerman examines the record and rhetoric of Pete Hegseth, Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense. (December 12)
A piece in Portland Press Herald on Trump's energy policy references comments from Professor Barbara Kates-Garnick. (December 11)
Professor Chris Miller speaks to Financial Times about whether the Biden-era domestic chipmaking boom will continue under Trump's presidency. (December 10)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen examines the fall of Bashar al-Assad and proposes new U.S. policies for Syria. (December 9)
Professor Katrina Burgess authors a piece in The Conversation on how Trump's policy plans will – and will not – affect migration patterns. (December 10)
In a guest opinion essay for The New York Times, Professor Daniel Drezner explores the career and worldview of U.S. Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio. (December 8)
Professor Chris Miller speaks to MIT Technology Review about the next phase for policy in U.S.-China semiconductor competition. (December 6)
In a piece for The Atlantic, alumnus Elliot Ackerman proposes changes that Trump could make to the Department of Defense. (December 5)
Professor Aram Hur provides comments to The Washington Post about the political crisis in South Korea and how it may affect U.S. ties. (December 4)
Professor Michael Klein speaks to The Boston Globe about how political interest groups can shape Trump's tariff policies. (December 2)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen assesses the state of the Republican and Democratic parties. (December 2)
Professor Katrina Burgess appears on Washington Journal to analyze the history of U.S. deportation policies, ahead of Trump's plans to escalate deportations. (December 1)
Professor Chris Miller joins Squawk Box to discuss how the next Trump administration will approach the Biden-era CHIPS Act. (November 26)
A piece in The New Republic on Donald Trump's leadership style references analysis from Professor Daniel Drezner. (November 26)
PhD candidate Zviad Adzinbaia advocates a change in U.S. policy towards the Republic of Georgia in a piece for Atlantic Council. (November 26)
In a piece for Foreign Policy, Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti explores how Trump's election victory has affected the information landscape. (November 25)
Professor Chris Miller speaks to Yahoo Finance about the first Trump administration's semiconductor policies and how they may preview his second term. (November 25)
PhD student Viking Boham co-authors a piece for The Wire China about the economic tools available for Trump to target China and other rivals. (November 24)
In a piece for The National Interest, visiting professor Mikhail Troitskiy assesses Russia's negotiating posture amid Trump's calls for a Ukraine war settlement. (November 24)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti speaks to The Washington Post about the rise of social media platform Bluesky in the wake of the 2024 presidential election. (November 23)
Professor Carsten Kowalczyk speaks to The Cut about how Trump's trade policies may affect consumer prices. (November 21)
Fletcher alumnus Michael Kugelman joins Bloomberg Insight to discuss how U.S. criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani may affect relations between Trump and Narendra Modi. (November 21)
Professor Chris Miller appears on Squawk Box Asia to address how Trump's next administration will approach semiconductor policy. (November 21)
Fletcher alumnus Peter Rough hosts a Hudson Institute panel on the Trump administration's national security plans, featuring the CTO of Palantir, a former Republican congressman, and a former Trump defense official. (November 21)
Professor Daniel Drezner speaks to The Boston Globe about the corporate leaders influencing Trump's transition. (November 20)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen explores how Trump's immigration plans may affect the economy. (November 20)
Fletcher alumna Evelyn Farkas speaks to CNN about the next Trump administration's leverage ahead of future talks with Vladimir Putin. (November 19)
As Trump advisors call to strategically decouple from Europe, Fletcher alumnus Brent Hardt advocates for maintaining the Atlantic alliance in a piece for The German Marshall Fund of the U.S. (November 19)
Senior fellow Gina McCarthy, who served as National Climate Advisor in the Biden White House, tells USA Today how states may craft climate policy in response to changes at the federal level. (November 18)
Voice of America interviews visiting scholar Pavel Luzin about developments in the Ukraine war occurring during the presidential transition period. (November 18)
Professor Tom Dannenbaum pens a piece in Just Security assessing how the Trump administration may approach ICC warrants against Israeli officials. (November 18)
In a Boston Globe opinion piece, Fletcher student Jay Rumas responds to Trump's promise to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS), advocating for Massachusetts to protect refugees. (November 14)
Professor Chris Miller speaks at the Future Economic Forum in Seoul, South Korea, hosted by Yonhap News Agency, where he commented on the Trump administration's likely technology policies. (November 14)
Professor Gautam Mukunda analyzes the proposed Department of Government Efficiency in a video interview with Yahoo Finance. (November 14)
Professor Alex de Waal authors an article for BBC Africa on the opportunities and challenges that Trump's reelection presents for the African continent. (November 13)
A piece in The New York Times on Trump's foreign policy appointments references analysis from Professor Daniel Drezner. (November 12)
Professor Daniel Drezner authors an essay for Foreign Affairs on how Trump's reelection will redefine American power. (November 12)
Taiwan's Central News Agency runs a story on how incoming E.U. Foreign Minister Kaja Kallas may approach Trump and China, mentioning her affection for a book by Fletcher Professor Sulmaan Khan. (November 12)
Dean Kelly Sims Gallagher tells The Boston Globe that other countries feel frustration with U.S. inconsistency in climate negotiations. (November 11)
A Financial Times column on the election's lessons for trade policy cites analysis from Fletcher senior fellow Michael A. Cohen. (November 11)
Professor Barbara Kates-Garnick speaks to The New Bedford Light about how the incoming Trump administration may approach green energy incentives. (November 10)
Professor Daniel Drezner joins the Foreign Affairs podcast for a conversation on Trump's second term foreign policy agenda. (November 8)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti speaks to Deutsche Welle about Elon Musk's role and agenda in the presidential election. (November 8)
Together with fellow journalists at Reuters, Fletcher alumnus Timothy Aeppel examines the questions facing Democrats in the aftermath of their election loss. (November 7)
In a second post-election piece for Reuters, Fletcher alumnus Timothy Aeppel reports on reactions from Black American voters. (November 7)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti analyzes the election results in a video for The Indian Express. (November 6)