There is reason to doubt Trump’s second non-consecutive term will be the same as his first.
Washington, DC: Days before the election that completed his shocking comeback, President-elect Donald Trump’s post on X, condemned the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh, praised Narendra Modi, and condemned Joe Biden’s handling of the war in Ukraine. From Trump’s point of view this was a play for the Indian diaspora in key swing states around America. But it was also music to Indian diplomats’ ears.
Policy wise, there have been ups and downs during Biden’s tenure, but the trajectory has been positive. But politically, the U.S./India relationship reached its zenith when Trump appeared with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at 2019’s “Howdy Modi,” event in Houston. Trump’s X post seemed to suggest that Trump 2.0 could lead the India/US relationship to new heights.
But there is reason to doubt Trump’s second non-consecutive term will be the same as his first.
While appearing on a panel, consisting of several American Trump loyalists, and Indian experts, I made a simple point that experts have made repeatedly: during Trump’s first term, his Vice President was Mike Pence, while this time, his Vice President would be J.D. Vance.
This difference has potentially profound implications. Pence, I pointed out, is one of the most strident supporters of Ukraine and critics of the rise of isolationism in the Republican party. Vance, on the other hand, is perhaps the most vocal critic of Ukraine on the right, backer of restraint, which its critics call isolationism.
The Indians on the panel, as well as Trump’s backers, disagreed, seeing this solely about what many Indians view as a mistaken U.S. policy toward the war between Russia and Ukraine. Due mostly to differing histories, the U.S. and India see the Ukraine war differently. India has benefited by purchasing Russian oil while under international sanctions and price caps, purchases which the U.S. has not asked India to cut, and while India is trying to curb its reliance on Russian arms, it hasn’t reached that point yet. More fundamentally, India’s de-facto alliance during the Cold War with Russia due to the U.S.’s closeness to Pakistan means that there is an Indian public that has fonder memories of their relationship with the then-Soviet Union than in the U.S., which remembers it only in terms of nuclear threats and conflict.
But the debate over Ukraine in America, and even within Trump’s own camp, is about far more than one tactical question of how to handle Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The outcome of this debate will likely have a significant long-term effect on U.S./India relations.
Shortly after his victory, Trump announced that former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, would not be serving in his second term. The reason for this was opposition from Don Trump Jr. and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, both of whom were big boosters of Vance’s nomination.
Tucker Carlson, who is close to Don Jr., may not be a well-known figure in India, but the media personality is one of the most prominent critics of Ukraine in America and has continuously embraced well-outside-the-mainstream characters who paint the entire post-World War II order, and even the Allied position in World War II itself, with hostility, but has remained a very influential voice in Trump’s orbit. His widely discussed anti-Israel sentiment shows this is not about tactical differences on Ukraine, but a fundamentally different worldview.
The next series of announcements seemed contradictory. First, he announced Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, a former harsh-critic of Trump turned close ally, as Secretary of State, Congressman Mike Waltz, also Republican of Florida, a top military vet and Pentagon advisor, as National Security Advisor. He then announced former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a Democrat turned Republican, as the Director of National Intelligence, and Pete Hegseth, a former National Guardsman turned-activist and television host, as Secretary of Defence.
Rubio and Waltz are closer to the Pence wing, but have changed over time. Both were in line with Pence point of view, but have taken a somewhat different tact to fit more closely in the Trump consensus, being somewhat less pro-Ukraine than traditional hawks. Haley, Pompeo, and certainly Pence, represent the last of the internationalist, “peace through strength,” Republicans that had served in Trump’s prior Administration. This wing dominated the Republican Party through the Cold War, but while many such individuals served in Trump’s first Administration, others went too far as to denounce Trump as “a security threat.” Pence, famously refused to endorse his old running mate.
But Hegseth, and particularly Gabbard, are something quite different. Both are “outside the box” picks that would not have been seriously considered for such an appointment by anybody but Donald Trump. They have one thing in common: they are inward focused and critical of America’s role in the world and inward looking. Gabbard, known to many Indians as the most prominent Hindu American to serve in high office, has been criticized by both parties for repeating the propaganda of Bashar al-Assad of Syria and, of course, Vladimir Putin, and is a favourite of the aforementioned Tucker Carlson. Hegseth’s experience is less in military or defence policy as in veterans’ policy, his only significant work outside the military as a low-level officer, is working for various right-leaning veterans’ groups, including Concerned Veterans for America, which is funded by the Koch network. Koch are leaning voices on the right for “restraint,” in their terms, “isolationism,” to their critics. On foreign policy, they are close to the Vance wing of the party.
This all may sound unimportant to India. But the worldview of Carlson, Vance, and their allies, far from the traditional “peace through strength,” Republicans, defines America’s interests in exceedingly narrow ways. They are sceptical at best, and hostile at worst, to the world order that draws India and the U.S. closer to each other’s orbit.
While India’s interests in the U.S. is vast and varied, it remains true that scepticism of radical Islam, and, more fundamentally, scepticism of China’s economic and military rise, are core to what brings India and the U.S. together. For example, the new “Quad” of the U.S., Japan, Australia and India is indeed intended to rein in China’s domination of the region, and joint counter-terrorism exercises are aimed mostly at counter-jihadi group efforts.
Yet, in addition to his scepticism of Ukraine, Trump has raised open questions about whether Taiwan is paying enough for its own defence, and seemed disinterested in playing the role of an “insurance company,” to cite just one example of an impulse that comes from the Vance wing.
While these instincts were toned down during Trump’s first Administration, they were not non-existent. India’s interests were harmed by the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and many forget that the deal that led to the Taliban’s reemergence was made under Trump. President Joe Biden was simply implementing Trump’s policy.
Thus, Trump’s foreign policy is up for grabs. As Indian leader Shashi Thaoor said, Trump’s philosophy is transactional. If views of people like Vance, Carlson, and their wing of the party, are triumphant, Trump’s second term will be different from his first, which was run by more traditional Republicans like Pence.
BJP Foreign Policy hand Seshadri Chari put it slightly differently in a recent op-ed, saying “At a time when hegemonic forces are challenging the supremacy of the US and the strength of the dollar, Trump’s idea of ending wars by withdrawing support for friends and allies may send jitters among them.”
He’s correct. Particularly in the long term, India’s interests will likely suffer if the Vance wing dominates the Trump Administration’s internal debates. Less so if the more traditional Republican voices, such as Rubio, do so.
Of course nobody, including, most likely, Trump, knows who will come out ahead at this point. But one should not believe that this internal debate is only about Ukraine policy. It is about much more than that.
* Cliff Smith is a lawyer, a former Congressional staffer and a freelance columnist.