Topic: Foreign Policy
“Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.”
He’s arguing here for ending the tiered review process, which would result in the President being able to unilaterally transfer or sell arms to other nations without Congressional approval. This is a horrifying recommendation. He continues, “Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, page 133, paragraph 5.)
If you’re only using the review process when congressional support is “guaranteed”, that’s a completely pointless review process.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.
“[The next President] should direct the Secretary of State to freeze any ongoing treaty or international agreement negotiations and assess whether those efforts align with the new President’s foreign policy direction.”
This is a horrible and dangerous idea – unilaterally freezing agreements and treaties while they’re “evaluated” is going back on our word as a country. Foreign governments would almost certainly view a sudden freeze in treaty negotiations as a sign of unpredictability and unreliability in U.S. foreign policy. This would erode trust and harm diplomatic relationships, especially with allies or partners who may have spent years negotiating these agreements. Freezing negotiations on arms control, defense cooperation, or counterterrorism agreements could delay critical measures needed for global security, potentially leaving the U.S. or its allies more vulnerable to threats.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“The United States should strictly enforce the doctrine of reciprocity when issuing visas to all foreign nationals.”
The doctrine of reciprocity means that the visa policies applied to foreign nationals entering the U.S. would mirror the policies those foreign nations apply to U.S. citizens. If a country imposes strict visa requirements on Americans, the U.S. would respond by imposing similar restrictions on citizens of that country. This promotes diplomatic leverage, and in a perfect world, could result in better treatment of Americans traveling abroad while they’re in those countries, assuming we’ve agreed to treat visitors from that particular country well while they’re guests of the United States.
In reality, however, some countries would automatically be excluded due to their policies, making enforced reciprocity a means of legally discriminating against foreign visitors from those countries. Israel’s border policy15 is one such example.
The GOP backed off from its allegiance to reciprocity after WW2, once it was widely recognized that their high tariff policies had worsened the Great Depression17 and sparked trade wars18. Now they’re revisiting these misguided and harmful policies even though history has foretold the results.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“…the next President must significantly reorient the U.S. government’s posture toward friends and adversaries alike—which will include much more honest assessments about who are friends and who are not. This reorientation could represent the most significant shift in core foreign policy principles and corresponding action since the end of the Cold War.”
I’m guessing this means we won’t be friends with any “shithole countries”23 any more? Seriously, this will likely result in the United States aligning itself with nations who have dictators Trump has “fallen in love with”24 or admires – Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Hungary, et al.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“The five countries on which the next Administration should focus its attention and energy are China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea.”
It’s interesting that Skinner is identifying as “existential threats” to the United States the very countries whose dictatorial leaders Trump has lavishly praised in all cases. This could create an internal conflict – I’m guessing she would disagree, then, with Trump’s promise to “let Putin do whatever the hell he wants.”25 (And in fact, Trump’s advisers at the time did attempt to distance themselves from this remark.) Trump has misunderstood for years how NATO funding works. NATO has a target that each member country spends a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, and most countries are not meeting that target. But the figure is a guideline and not a binding contract, nor does it create “bills” – member countries haven’t been failing to pay their share of NATO’s common budget to run the organization.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“The U.S. government needs an Article X for China, and it should be a presidential mandate.”
Article X refers to a 1947 document written by George F. Kennan that laid out the framework for the Cold War. Skinner is arguing for the President declaring a cold war on China without congressional approval. One of the consequences would be economic decoupling (which is no accident, Kevin D. Roberts touches on the idea in the Foreword, and I cover the potential results there.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“Bluntly stated, Mexico can no longer qualify as a first-world nation; it has functionally lost its sovereignty to muscular criminal cartels that effectively run the country.”
Skinner recommends here a “sovereign Mexico” policy, wherein we minimize U.S. intervention in Mexico’s internal affairs.
The U.S. has traditionally been involved in Mexico’s fight against drug cartels through programs like the Mérida Initiative27. A sovereign Mexico policy might reduce or end U.S. involvement in these operations, leaving Mexico to address drug violence and trafficking independently. The success will hinge on whether Mexico has the resources or capacity to manage these threats alone.
In the next paragraph, Skinner appears to believe that a sovereign Mexico policy will resolve the fentanyl crisis. As I point out in Section 2.1 when discussing why militarizing the border won’t end the fentanyl crisis, “An NPR-Ipsos poll in September 2022 found that “39% of Americans and 60% of Republicans believe that most of the fentanyl entering the U.S. is smuggled in by unauthorized migrants crossing the border.” In fact, 86.3% of convicted fentanyl drug traffickers, and fentanyl smuggling is ultimately funded by U.S. consumers who pay for illicit opioids, 99% of whom are U.S. citizens.” [Source]28 Neither will declaring Mexico a sovereign nation magically resolve the fentanyl crisis.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the U.S. social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them.”
This is an absolute misrepresentation of what’s really going on. In fact, abortion is legal in much of Africa29.
From the linked article: “And despite the expanded legality of the procedure in places like Ghana, Congo, Ethiopia and Mozambique, some doctors and nurses say they’ve become increasingly wary of openly providing abortions. They’re fearful of triggering the ire of opposition groups that have become emboldened since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning the nationwide right to abortion.”
Skinner is erroneously claiming that Africa balks at “woke” policies, when in fact, they’re responding to OUR oppressive policies and afraid they’ll be endangered by zealots who are emboldened by those oppressive policies.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“Under the Trump Administration, USAID focused on ending the need for foreign aid by placing countries onto a Journey to Self-Reliance. The Administration restructured the agency to reflect this strategic approach to development, streamlined procurement procedures to diversify its partner base, increased awards to cost-effective local (including faith-based) organizations, and improved internal governance. It instituted pro-life and family-friendly policies. It promoted international religious freedom as a pillar of the agency’s work and built up an unprecedented genocide-response infrastructure.”
This requires some nuance to fully explain. Visit the link below for full context and an unpacking of this statement.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“The Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systemic racism.”
This is a grotesquely exaggerated and partisan interpretation of reality. Yes, the Biden administration rescinded the disastrous Mexico City Policy. (And it should be noted here that USAID still follows U.S. federal law, which prohibits using federal funds directly for abortions in most cases and has since 1973 – see the Helms Amendment.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.