Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

"Watch out for the fellow who talks about putting things in order! Putting things in order always means getting other people under your control."

– Denis Diderot

“No matter how isolated you are and how lonely you feel, if you do your work truly and conscientiously, unknown friends will come and seek you out.”

– Carl Jung

“For what it's worth… It's never too late, or in my case too early, to be whoever you want to be. There's no time limit. Start whenever you want. You can change or stay the same. There are no rules to this thing. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you've never felt before. I hope you meet people who have a different point of you. I hope you live a life you're proud of, and if you're not, I hope you have the courage to start over again.”

– F. Scott Fitzgerald

1. America Is Handing China a Massive Victory

2. 11 top contenders to replace Waltz as national security adviser

3. The Future of SOF ... What I Learned at Georgetown University—and Why Speculative Futures Matter. by Isaiah Wilson III

4. Operation Neptune Spear: What We Still Learn from the Mission that Killed bin Laden

5. RFA announces mass layoffs, shutdown of major language services

6. Trump administration plans major downsizing at U.S. spy agencies

7. C.I.A. Aims to Recruit Chinese Nationals With New Videos

8. Play It Again R.E.M.: Band Re-Releases Anthem In Support Of Radio Free Europe

9. Top Republican Mutinies Over Trump’s Meager Military Budget

10. U.S. Secretary of Commerce says the ‘new model’ is factory jobs for life—for you, your kids, and your grandkids

11. Trump Should Rein In Taiwan

12. Trump is destroying 100 years of competitive advantage in 100 days

13. U.S. Economy Shows Remarkable Resilience in Face of Trade Turmoil

14. A Not So Radical Trump Budget

15. Trump Is Undermining 3 Key US Advantages Over China

16. US security policy in Asia shows some continuity in sea of change

17. America is in Asia, but not of Asia

18. Strengthening Nuclear Deterrence in the Far East

1. America Is Handing China a Massive Victory

Yes we are. This is a national security issue and our failure to understand the important contributions of RFA (and VOA and RFE/RL) makes us vulnerable to authoritarian regimes and removes a key tool for dealing with the regimes, and putting pressure on them by helping oppressed people free themselves with knowledge and information. We are taking a key tool of political warfare from our arsenal and we are ceding the political warfare battle space to our enemies.

Excerpts:

RFA’s survival is central to U.S. interests. The recently published Annual Threat Assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence leaves little doubt that the Trump administration considers China the central menace to U.S. security. The report warns of Chinese operations weaponizing fake online profiles and artificial-intelligence-generated news anchors to “suppress critical views and critics of China within the United States and worldwide, and sow doubts in U.S. leadership and strength.”

RFA’s on-the-ground journalism has brought the world’s attention to some of the Chinese Communist Party’s most inconvenient truths. When the Hong Kong government forced the independent news providers Apple Daily and Stand News to fold in 2021, RFA stood its ground as the last major independent Cantonese media outlet. We continued to operate in Hong Kong until threats to our journalists forced us to close our bureau last year.

When China opened a secret police station in New York in 2022, RFA’s investigative reporters exposed that it was but a small part of a growing network of party stations around the globe. And when the Chinese government started rounding up Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in 2017, RFA’s small team of Uyghur reporters in Washington exposed mass detentions in Xinjiang that eventually ensnared more than a million people. Our reporting was picked up by news outlets around the world and led the United States to declare that the Chinese Communist Party was committing genocide against its Uyghur citizens. In retaliation for RFA’s coverage, we estimate that Chinese authorities have jailed at least 50 of our Uyghur journalists’ family members.

Opinion

Guest Essay

America Is Handing China a Massive Victory

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/opinion/china-radio-free-xi-trump.html?utm

May 2, 2025

Credit...Elaine L

By Bay Fang

Ms. Fang is the president and chief executive of Radio Free Asia.

In February 2020, weeks before Covid-19 paralyzed the world, the Radio Free Asia reporter Jane Tang received a panicked text from a source in Wuhan, China: “They are following me,” the message read. “I’m too scared to move.” Ms. Tang had been investigating China’s cover-up of a new disease that had spread through Wuhan when she learned that Li Zehua, a journalist who had quit his state media job to chase the story, was being trailed by the police. Shortly after Ms. Tang received the message, Mr. Li was arrested.

In contacting RFA, Mr. Li turned to one of the last reliable channels for on-the-ground, uncensored news in China. Since it was established in 1996 by the U.S. government in response to China’s massacre of pro-democracy student protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989, RFA has reported from regions in Asia hostile to independent journalism: China, North Korea and Myanmar, among others, filling an important gap where free press outlets cannot exist.

RFA’s impact has been crucial in China, where the Chinese Communist Party maintains a stranglehold on all media. The party, which leads the world in imprisoning journalists, relentlessly monitors and surveils social media and punishes people for online comments that run afoul of Beijing’s official narrative. Its advanced censorship and surveillance technologies are constantly upgraded to block unsanctioned news from reaching ordinary Chinese people.

Despite the roadblocks and intimidation, a national survey by Ipsos found that at least 44.1 million users managed to break through China’s Great Firewall weekly to read and listen to RFA’s reports in Mandarin, Cantonese, Uyghur and Tibetan. They seek out RFA to learn the truth about subjects such as natural disasters, mass protests, internal party conflicts and Taiwan’s democracy. The connection goes both ways: Ordinary citizens have provided the invaluable news tips that have fueled RFA’s reporting for almost 30 years.

Yet today, as part of President Trump’s administrative cuts, RFA stands on the brink of extinction. On March 15, RFA’s parent agency, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, notified us that the $60 million grant that financed our entire operation was canceled and we would no longer receive our congressionally appropriated funds. Since then, RFA has been forced to sever contracts with almost all of our 463 on-the-ground stringers and furlough more than three-quarters of our 391 full-time staff members. Our studios are empty, and news production is minimal. Entire services in some languages have gone dark. Layoffs are imminent.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

While the United States divests from providing free, uncensored press in China, the Chinese government continues to ramp up its global disinformation operation. China pours billions of dollars annually into a global media influence campaign that includes a radio program in some 50 languages, and its China Global Television Network operates in more than 70 countries. Beyond its official transmissions and websites, Beijing gives away content to media outlets throughout Africa, the Pacific region and Southeast Asia, and reportedly pays non-Chinese influencers to gush about subjects like tourism in Xinjiang, home to the repressed Uyghur minority.

Celebrating RFA’s imminent demise on Weibo, a popular Chinese social media platform, a former editor in chief of the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece Global Times wrote, “Such great news.” By letting RFA go totally dark at this crucial moment, the U.S. government would cede the information space to China, playing into the hands of President Xi Jinping.

RFA’s survival is central to U.S. interests. The recently published Annual Threat Assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence leaves little doubt that the Trump administration considers China the central menace to U.S. security. The report warns of Chinese operations weaponizing fake online profiles and artificial-intelligence-generated news anchors to “suppress critical views and critics of China within the United States and worldwide, and sow doubts in U.S. leadership and strength.”

RFA’s on-the-ground journalism has brought the world’s attention to some of the Chinese Communist Party’s most inconvenient truths. When the Hong Kong government forced the independent news providers Apple Daily and Stand News to fold in 2021, RFA stood its ground as the last major independent Cantonese media outlet. We continued to operate in Hong Kong until threats to our journalists forced us to close our bureau last year.

When China opened a secret police station in New York in 2022, RFA’s investigative reporters exposed that it was but a small part of a growing network of party stations around the globe. And when the Chinese government started rounding up Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in 2017, RFA’s small team of Uyghur reporters in Washington exposed mass detentions in Xinjiang that eventually ensnared more than a million people. Our reporting was picked up by news outlets around the world and led the United States to declare that the Chinese Communist Party was committing genocide against its Uyghur citizens. In retaliation for RFA’s coverage, we estimate that Chinese authorities have jailed at least 50 of our Uyghur journalists’ family members.

The sacrifices that RFA reporters make knowing they’re the last line of defense for their countrymen are often unimaginable. They cut family ties to minimize the harassment of their loved ones. They have been jailed, tortured and exiled. Now these brave journalists, who have risked everything to speak truth to dictators abroad, may be silenced by the very nation whose belief in press freedom inspired them in the first place.

The irony is as stark as it is cruel, and that is why we continue to fight for RFA’s survival, bringing our case to the courts. Last week the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the U.S. government to release our funds. The order has since been appealed, and we have yet to receive any additional funds. If RFA is silenced, the official narratives espoused by dictators and despots may go unchecked and unchallenged. The next time a brave source calls or texts, there will be no one left to pick up the phone.

11 top contenders to replace Waltz as national security adviser

by Filip Timotija and Colin Meyn - 05/02/25 12:34 PM ET

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/5278188-trump-nominee-national-security/

National security adviser Mike Waltz is out, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio replacing him on an interim basis.

President Trump announced Thursday afternoon that Waltz, a former House GOP lawmaker, would instead be his next nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

“From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role,” Trump said in a Thursday post on Truth Social.

Alex Wong, Waltz’s deputy, is also expected to depart. Both have been targeted by far-right influencers in the MAGA movement, and Waltz was at the center of the Signal scandal that embarrassed the Trump administration in March.

Here are the leading candidates to replace Waltz in a permanent capacity.

Marco Rubio

The U.S.’s top diplomat could see his interim dual role extended to a permanently expanded portfolio.

Rubio will be the first to serve as both the secretary of State and national security adviser concurrently since the late Henry Kissinger.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, who learned of Rubio’s new role during her press briefing Thursday, said he has “worn several hats” during Trump’s second term and expressed confidence that he can carry the additional load.

Rubio has been involved in the administration’s push to forge a peace agreement that would end the Russia-Ukraine war, and he has been a central figure in attempts to deport foreign students involved in anti-Israel protests.

Steve Witkoff

Steve Witkoff is a leading candidate to replace Waltz, according to multiple outlets, having quickly accumulated a sprawling portfolio as Trump’s favored international negotiator.

The Hill has reached out to Witkoff’s spokesperson for comment.

Witkoff, a billionaire real-estate investor, was tapped by Trump to be his special envoy to the Middle East. He has since become the point person for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the war in Ukraine and has been the lead negotiator in early talks with Iran over its nuclear program.

Witkoff’s relationship with Trump goes back decades. However, he would be a highly unusual pick as national security adviser, with no official experience in government, foreign affairs or the military.

Ric Grenell

Ric Grenell is serving as Trump’s envoy for special missions and was seen as a candidate for both national security adviser and secretary of State heading into Trump’s second term. He is also interim executive director of the Kennedy Center.

Grenell has kept a relatively low profile in recent months, but he was involved in the release of six Americans held hostage in Venezuela in January.

Grenell served in multiple posts during Trump’s first four years in the White House, including acting director of national intelligence and ambassador to Germany. Trump also tapped Grenell to be his special envoy for Serbia and Kosovo during his first Oval Office stint.

Stephen Miller

Axios reported Friday that Stephen Miller, Trump’s top domestic policy adviser, is “gathering buzz” in Washington amid the search for Waltz’s replacement.

Miller has been a leading force in Trump’s immigration crackdown, as the president’s homeland security adviser, and is often a public face of the administration’s most divisive deportation actions.

A move to the national security brief would mark a significant shift of Miller’s attention within Trump’s inner circle.

Miller was part of a Signal group that accidentally included journalist Jeffrey Goldberg. In that discussion, he effectively shut down debate among top officials over Trump’s plans to attack Houthi rebels threatening Red Sea shipping lanes.

Michael Anton

Michael Anton has quickly become a favorite candidate to replace Waltz in online MAGA circles, as Politico reported. He was also appointed last week to lead technical talks with Iran over its nuclear program.

He is the State Department’s policy planning director and was in the Vatican last weekend when Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

During Trump’s first White House term, Anton served on the National Security Council. He later worked as a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute.

Sebastian Gorka

Sebastian Gorka, who is a first Trump administration alumnus, could also be in the mix.

He was tapped in November last year to be the deputy assistant to the president and the senior director for counterterrorism.

“Since 2015, Dr. Gorka has been a tireless advocate for the America First Agenda and the MAGA Movement, serving previously as Strategist to the President in the first Trump Administration,” Trump said about Gorka at the time.

Trump picked Gorka to be on his national security advisory board in July 2020. Before that role, he was advising the administration on counterterrorism matters.

Robert O’Brien

Robert O’Brien was Trump’s fourth and final national security adviser during his first term, serving from 2019 to 2021. He was seen as a contender for secretary of State before Rubio’s nomination.

O’Brien was Trump’s special envoy for hostage negotiations before becoming national security adviser. He previously advised high-profile Republicans, including former Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) and Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas).

He was also a relatively rare figure in the first Trump administration, acknowledging Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election and promising an orderly transition. O’Brien was interviewed by the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.

Fred Fleitz

Fred Fleitz was chief of staff and executive secretary of the National Security Council for a few months during the first Trump administration, from May to October in 2018. He was a longtime top aide to John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser at the time.

He is currently vice chair of the America First Policy Institute Center for American Security and a Newsmax contributor.

Fleitz spent nearly three decades in various national security positions, including in the CIA, the State Department and as a House Intelligence Committee staff member.

He was on Trump’s shortlist of candidates to replace Bolton in 2019, a list that also included O’Brien, Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, Keith Kellogg and Ricky Waddell.

Keith Kellogg

Retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg was initially appointed as Trump’s special envoy to the Russia-Ukraine talks in January, but he saw that role scaled back to focus on the Ukraine side of talks, which includes coordination with Europe. Witkoff has handled the Russia side of the brief.

Kellogg served as national security adviser to then-Vice President Mike Pence in the first Trump administration and as chief of staff for the National Security Council.

Kellogg is a decorated veteran of both the wars in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf, and he was a senior Pentagon official during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The retired general briefly served as acting national security adviser following the resignation of Michael Flynn, also a retired lieutenant general, in 2017.

Christopher Landau

Another option to succeed Waltz is Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, Reuters reported, citing an unnamed source.

The State Department declined to comment on the possibility and referred The Hill to the White House.

Landau, an attorney, was Trump’s ambassador to Mexico from 2019 to 2021.

Before his time in Mexico City, Landau practiced law in Washington, D.C., for more than three decades.

Elise Stefanik

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) would be a top contender — if it weren’t for the House Republican math problem.

Stefanik was Trump’s nominee to be the next United Nations ambassador, until she was pulled in March over GOP jitters over its paper-thin majority in the House and potentially losing her usually safe seat in upstate New York.

So while now may not be her time for the Trump administration, she’ll likely be back in the mix for Cabinet posts if Trump shakes up his team after the midterms.

3.The Future of SOF ... What I Learned at Georgetown University—and Why Speculative Futures Matter. by Isaiah Wilson III

Compound Security, Unlocked

37Subscribe

The Future of SOF ...

What I Learned at Georgetown University—and Why Speculative Futures Matter.

https://compoundsecurityunlocked.substack.com/p/the-future-of-sof

Isaiah Wilson III

May 02, 2025

By Dr. Isaiah (Ike) Wilson III

April 2025 | Professor & President, Emeritus, Joint Special Operations University | Author: Compound Security Unlocked

Opening Reflections – An Evening at Georgetown University

A few days ago, I had the distinct privilege of speaking to an extraordinary group of graduate students at Georgetown University—many of them future leaders, scholars, and strategists.

My talk was titled “The Future of Special Operations Forces: Speculative Futures and Strategic Transformation Through Storytelling.”

But what began as a guest lecture quickly evolved into something more: a generative dialogue about where we’ve been, where we might be heading, and what kind of strategic mindset the future demands.

And as I stood there—in conversation with the next generation of national security professionals—it became even more clear to me: if we are to navigate the emerging global terrain of compound threats and complex competition, we must pair analytic rigor with narrative foresight.

That is why I write today—not merely to share highlights from the talk, but to reflect on why speculative futures storytelling has become a vital tool in the transformation of U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF), and why I believe it should become core to how we think about the future of strategy, power, and peace.

SOF at a Strategic Inflection Point

Over the past two decades, SOF has operated at the leading edge of the Global War on Terror—precision strikes, hostage rescues, counterinsurgency, and covert disruption. This era forged an agile, resilient force, honed through mission tempo and tactical urgency.

But today, we are no longer in that era.

We are in a compound era—one defined by converging threats: authoritarian revisionism, cyber disruption, economic coercion, AI-enabled adversaries, and influence warfare. In this context, the question for SOF is no longer just how to strike harder or faster. It is:

What kind of force must SOF become to stay relevant in a world where war and peace blend into a single gray continuum?

At Georgetown, I posed this exact question. The answer, I suggested, lies in a strategic rebalancing—a transformation of SOF’s use, utility, and identity of self.

The SOF of the future must integrate its legacy of kinetic excellence with new competencies in irregular warfare, digital influence, and anticipatory strategy. It must become the vanguard of strategic foresight—a sentinel in both the cognitive and physical battlespaces.

Why Storytelling? Why Speculative Futures?

You may ask: why anchor this transformation in storytelling?

Here’s why.

Strategic narratives have always guided SOF. The "quiet professional," the "tip of the spear," the force that works "for nation, not self"—these are not just slogans; they are identity architectures. And identities, like strategies, must evolve.

Drawing from the Hero’s Journey narrative arc, I argued that SOF is now at the threshold moment—stepping from the known (GWOT, COIN) into the unknown (great power competition, compound conflict).

To cross that threshold wisely, we need tools that help us imagine not only what’s possible, but what’s plausible and purposeful. That’s where speculative futures and FICINT (Fictional Intelligence) come in.

FICINT in Action: Strategic Imagination for Strategic Advantage

At JSOU, and later in broader work with USSOCOM and W.i.S.E. Consulting, I led the integration of speculative fiction into professional military education and concept development. Initially met with skepticism, it has since become a recognized instrument of anticipatory design—used to:

Stress-test campaign concepts
Prototype future threats and operational responses
Explore "what if" scenarios that defy the limits of standard planning

In The Fourth Age of SOF project, for example, we imagined future missions in cyber-contested zones, AI-influenced civil unrest, and influence operations across fractured alliances.

These were not fantasies. They were fictionalized foresight—narratives constructed from real strategic signals, designed to provoke questions and guide decisions.

As I told the students:

“FICINT is not about predicting the future. It’s about preparing the mind to recognize the future faster when it arrives.”

Toward the Fifth—and Possibly Sixth—Age of SOF

If we define the Fourth Age of SOF as the post-GWOT era of hybrid competition and persistent engagement, then we are now entering the Fifth Age—marked by:

AI-human teaming
Cyber-cognitive warfare
Influence as strategic deterrence

But looming over the horizon is the Sixth Age, potentially triggered by systemic shocks—either from within (American political fracture) or without (peer conflict or coalition failure). Preparing for such shifts requires more than readiness. It demands narrative adaptability and the ability to rehearse the unthinkable.

Strategic Storytelling as SOF's Compass Forward

So, what did last night at Georgetown teach me?

It reminded me that the most potent future force is not simply armed with tech or tactics—but with imagination disciplined by strategy.

It reminded me that today’s students are ready to think expansively—if we offer them the right frameworks, the right provocations, and the permission to dream dangerously in service of peace.

And it reaffirmed for me that storytelling, when grounded in rigorous foresight and ethical purpose, is not soft power—it is compound power.

A Call to Readers: The Future Is a Story We Must Choose to Write

To those of you reading—strategists, scholars, citizens, and SOF professionals—I leave you with this:

What story will we tell of SOF in the decades to come?

Will it be one of stagnation or transformation? Reaction or reinvention? Power for power’s sake, or power reimagined for the defense of dignity, stability, and peace?

The future, as always, will belong to those bold enough to imagine it first—and shape it next.

Let’s get to work.

—

Dr. Isaiah “Ike” Wilson III

Founder & CEO, Wilson W.i.S.E. Consulting | President Emeritus, JSOU

Professor of Practice, ASU | COL, U.S. Army (Ret.)

Foresighting Forward

For those intrigued by this line of inquiry, I invite you to explore a deeper foresighted projection in the JSOU/USSOCOM–Useful Fiction LLC anthology, The Fourth Age: The Future of Special Operations.

In it, I contribute a foundational essay outlining the contours of a not-yet-realized Fifth Age of SOF—one defined by human-machine integration, compound influence operations, and ethical statecraft under digital duress. But the horizon doesn’t end there.

Stay tuned for my forthcoming post:

“The Sixth Age of SOF: Strategy, Collapse, and the Shadow After Dominance”—

where I’ll explore the possibilities, perils, and preparations for what comes after the storm.

4. Operation Neptune Spear: What We Still Learn from the Mission that Killed bin Laden

As an aside the day after this I left with about 15 National War College students to travel to China. This trip was the last thing I did in the Army before I retired. We received an earful from the Chinese criticizing the operation for violating Pakistani sovereignty. :-)

Operation Neptune Spear: What We Still Learn from the Mission that Killed bin Laden

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/operation-neptune-spear-what-we-still-learn-from-mission-alex-dekker-1ca4e/?trackingId=%2BpXYxTy6mxzQicqBkJoGNA%3D%3D

Alex Dekker

United States Army Special Forces (Green Beret) OIF | OEF | OIR Special Forces Combat Diver

May 2, 2025

In the early hours of May 2, 2011, U.S. special operations forces executed Operation Neptune Spear, the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. Conducted by U.S. Navy SEALs with support from other organizations, the operation marked the culmination of nearly a decade of relentless intelligence gathering, interagency cooperation, and global manhunting efforts following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The raid took place in Abbottabad, Pakistan, just a short distance from the country’s premier military academy. Two modified Black Hawk helicopters carried the assault force across the border from Afghanistan into Pakistani airspace undetected. Within 40 minutes of landing inside the compound, the SEALs had located and killed bin Laden, secured multiple hard drives and documents, and extracted without losing a single U.S. service member.

Despite the mission’s overwhelming success, not everything went according to plan. One of the helicopters crash landed inside the compound due to an unexpected aerodynamic effect caused by high walls, warmer-than-expected ambient air, and the confined landing zone. However, the team had trained for potential aircraft failures, allowing them to adapt quickly and continue the mission. On a broader level, the violation of Pakistani airspace, executed without prior notification to Pakistani authorities, caused significant diplomatic strain, especially since the target was found hiding in a high security area deep within the country.

What made the mission successful, however, was the convergence of strategic patience, preparation, and professionalism. Intelligence professionals spent years tracking a courier known to be close to bin Laden. Once the compound in Abbottabad was identified, teams built full scale replicas of the structure for rehearsals. The operation was a model of interagency coordination, with CIA intelligence and military precision working in lockstep, and of decentralized leadership in action.

Several key lessons still resonate. First, actionable intelligence often takes years to mature, especially at the highest levels. High value targeting is as much about human persistence as it is about technical capability. Second, elite units train obsessively for failure, not success, and that training paid off when the plan went sideways. Third, the mission reignited a global debate over sovereignty and unilateral action. Neptune Spear is now studied in military academies and war colleges as a case study in balancing operational risk against strategic fallout.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the operation was a reminder that while technology enables, it is human adaptability that decides outcomes. Stealth helicopters, drones, and ISR platforms all played a role, but it was disciplined decision making under pressure that carried the day.

Fourteen years later, the raid remains one of the most analyzed special operations missions in U.S. history. It was a tactical success, a political flashpoint, and a benchmark for joint operations. For those in military, intelligence, and policy communities, it continues to offer lessons on leadership, preparation, and execution in complex environments.

5. RFA announces mass layoffs, shutdown of major language services

America is a casualty of a self inflicted wound.

RFA announces mass layoffs, shutdown of major language services

https://www.rfa.org/english/about/releases/2025/05/02/rfa-announces-mass-layoffs-shutdown-of-major-language-services/?utm

RFA Tibetan service bureau at Radio Free Asia headquarters in Washington, March 24, 2025. (Charlie Dharapak/RFA)

2025.05.02

WASHINGTON - Today, Radio Free Asia (RFA) leadership informed its furloughed and the majority of their additional staff that they would be laid off, effective May 9. By the end of May, half of RFA’s language services will no longer produce or publish new content: RFA Tibetan, Burmese, Uyghur - which is the world’s only independent Uyghur language news service - and Lao (which closed down this week already). Also, ceasing operations will be RFA English service and Asia Fact Check Lab, a special unit focused on picking apart false narratives seeded by the Chinese Communist Party. These moves are drastic but necessary, RFA President and CEO Bay Fang said, given the delays in receiving its funds from the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), despite a court order last week.

“We are in an unconscionable situation,” Fang said. “Because we can no longer rely on USAGM to disburse our funds as Congress intended, we will have to begin mass layoffs and let entire language services go dark in the next week.

“We are losing journalists who broke the news about the CCP’s genocide against the Uyghurs, who risked their lives covering a civil war in Myanmar, who exposed human trafficking networks in Southeast Asia, and who brought to light the crackdown on religious freedom in Tibet.

“Their invaluable work is part of RFA’s responsibility to uphold the truth so that dictators and despots don’t have the last word. Our priority remains to preserve our company and Congressionally mandated mission, while protecting our most vulnerable journalists.”

Next Friday, more than 280 staff members will be laid off, almost 90 percent of RFA’s U.S.-based workforce. Overseas, the service will terminate almost 20 positions. Additional terminations will continue throughout the month. Every department and level of the organization is being impacted. In addition, staff being terminated will have their health insurance paid through the end of May.

Following the termination of its grant agreement by the USAGM on March 15, RFA put three quarters of its U.S.-based employees on unpaid leave and terminated most of its overseas contractors. Soon after, it initiated a lawsuit to receive its Congressionally appropriated funds in the court. The Justice Department has appealed last week’s ruling to reinstate RFA’s grant agreement and funding stream. Last night, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily granted a motion for an administrative stay on the previous ruling, effectively allowing the USAGM to continue withholding funding from RFA and its sister grantee network Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

In a piece published today, the day before World Press Freedom Day, on The New York Times website, Fang laid out the case for RFA’s value to U.S. interests and what its potential demise means, given the sacrifice of its staff: “[T]hese brave journalists, who have risked everything to speak truth to dictators abroad, may be silenced by the very nation whose belief in press freedom inspired them in the first place.”

6. Trump administration plans major downsizing at U.S. spy agencies

What will be the long term strategic implications? Will we have better intelligence collection and analysis? Will we sustain sufficient capabilities as well as the ability to train and educate the future intelligence force?

Trump administration plans major downsizing at U.S. spy agencies

The planned cuts include 1,200 positions at the CIA, along with thousands more from other parts of the U.S. intelligence community.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/05/02/cia-layoffs-trump-administration/?utm

UpdatedMay 2, 2025 at 5:56 p.m. EDTtoday at 5:56 p.m. EDT

7 min

1457

CIA Director John Ratcliffe, seen at a Cabinet meeting in February, has pledged to streamline the agency. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

By Warren P. Strobel

The Trump administration is planning significant personnel cuts at the Central Intelligence Agency and other major U.S. spy units, downsizing the government’s most sensitive national security agencies, according to people familiar with the plans.

The administration recently informed lawmakers on Capitol Hill that it intends to reduce the CIA’s workforce by about 1,200 personnel over several years and cut thousands more from other parts of the U.S. intelligence community, including at the National Security Agency, a highly secretive service that specializes in cryptology and global electronic espionage, a person familiar with the matter said. The person, like others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

The specifics of the planned cuts have not been previously reported.

The CIA does not publicly disclose the size of its workforce, but it is believed to be about 22,000. It is unclear which parts of the spy agency would be most affected. The downsizing is happening even as CIA Director John Ratcliffe has pledged to put more agency resources on China and on cartels smuggling fentanyl and other synthetic drugs into the United States.

Follow Trump’s second term

The staff reductions would take place over several years and would be accomplished in part through reduced hiring. No outright firings are envisioned. The goal of a roughly 1,200-person staff reduction includes several hundred individuals who already have opted for early retirement, the person familiar with the matter said.

The downsizing is taking place separately from efforts by the U.S. DOGE Service, led by billionaire Elon Musk, to radically restructure the federal government. Musk met with Ratcliffe in late March for a discussion that included government efficiency measures, but no DOGE teams have been working at the agency’s Langley, Virginia, campus.

“Director Ratcliffe is moving swiftly to ensure the CIA workforce is responsive to the Administration’s national security priorities,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement. “These moves are part of a holistic strategy to infuse the Agency with renewed energy, provide opportunities for rising leaders to emerge, and better position CIA to deliver on its mission.”

Both Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have pledged to streamline their agencies and, at President Donald Trump’s bidding, have eliminated diversity, equity and inclusion programs — firing personnel who worked on those issues. Nineteen employees of the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence sued in federal court to stop their dismissal; a federal judge in late March issued a temporary injunction halting the firings.

Since assuming her post, Gabbard has frequently spoken to conservative media outlets and depicted some U.S. intelligence personnel as part of a “deep state” working to undermine Trump, echoing charges the president has made. As a congresswoman from Hawaii, she sometimes expressed skepticism of U.S. intelligence judgments, including a 2017 assessment that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own citizens in Syria.

Gabbard said at a White House Cabinet meeting on Wednesday that the ODNI is “25 percent smaller and more lean today than when I walked in the door.” She was confirmed to her post on Feb. 12.

Gabbard did not specify what has been eliminated at the ODNI, which coordinates the vast intelligence apparatus across 18 separate spy agencies and has about 2,000 employees. A spokeswoman said details were not available. “Quite a few DEI-related cuts have already been announced,” the spokeswoman said.

The planned workforce shrinkage comes at a perilous moment with the U.S. involved in multiple global crises and at a difficult time for tens of thousands of intelligence and law enforcement professionals.

Gabbard and other Trump appointees have ramped up leak investigations, including methods such as using polygraphs at the FBI, which some current and former officials say is creating a climate of fear and intimidation. An earlier round of dismissals of probationary workers and DEI employees deeply unsettled civilian and military intelligence employees.

Critics of the planned reductions at the CIA and other agencies said they posed a threat to national security. “These sweeping, reckless cuts of experienced intelligence personnel by the Trump administration will undoubtedly undermine our ability to detect and respond to threats and make America less safe,” said Sen. Mark R. Warner (Virginia), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Current and former U.S. officials also warn of a counterintelligence risk, noting that having thousands of potentially disgruntled intelligence personnel out of work presents a ripe recruiting target for adversary nations’ spy services.

Russia and China have recently directed their intelligence services to ramp up attempts to recruit U.S. national security workers, targeting those who have been fired or feel they could be soon, CNN reported in March, citing U.S. intelligence assessments on the issue.

Last month, the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, a part of the ODNI that coordinates programs to thwart foreign spies, warned that foreign intelligence entities — particularly in China — are targeting current and former U.S. employees online, offering jobs while posing as consulting firms, corporate headhunters and think tanks.

While intelligence officers are trained to spot and resist such attempts, and recently laid off staff are legally compelled to report any overtures to U.S. counterintelligence authorities, even a single breach could have serious national security consequences. Former CIA officer Kevin Mallory was convicted of espionage and related charges in 2018, after prosecutors alleged he sold deeply damaging secrets about U.S. intelligence operations to China. He had been mired in debt when a Chinese intelligence officer, posing as a headhunter, contacted him on LinkedIn.

Several senior former U.S. intelligence officials said they have received numerous calls and emails from friends at the CIA, asking for help in transitioning to private-sector work. “People are just flooding out,” one such official said. “People who are senior but not qualified necessarily for early outs [are] thinking about leaving.”

At the ODNI, more than 100 people have taken an early resignation offer, commonly known as the “Fork in the Road,” that would see them paid through Sept. 30.

Gabbard also has been reviewing the numerous intelligence centers under the ODNI — focused on topics such as terrorism, counterintelligence and weapons proliferation — with an eye on staff reductions or folding them into other agencies.

At the CIA, the person familiar with the matter said, of the 1,200 positions to be cut, slightly more than 500 represent workers who have already put in for early retirement.

A total of several thousand positions would also be cut from the NSA; the Defense Intelligence Agency; the National Reconnaissance Office, which designs and operates spy satellites; and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes satellite imagery and provides targeting data to U.S. troops, according to the plans described to The Washington Post.

The former senior intelligence official said the staff reductions at the CIA, if handled properly, would not necessarily be disruptive — particularly if they are focused on underperforming employees. The reductions appear to represent roughly 5 percent of the CIA’s workforce. “That does not seem that out of line,” the former official said.

In a March 31 note to the CIA workforce laying out his priorities for the spy agency, Ratcliffe wrote: “For decades, CIA has known nothing but growth, but the years of growing budgets and resources are behind us. Moving forward, you will be part of a smaller, more elite and efficient workforce.” The memo was first reported by the New York Post.

Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

What readers are saying

The comments overwhelmingly express concern and criticism regarding the Trump administration's plan to downsize U.S. intelligence agencies, with many suggesting that the move benefits adversaries like Russia and China. Commenters frequently imply or state outright that Trump is... Show more

This summary is AI-generated. AI can make mistakes and this summary is not a replacement for reading the comments.

All comments 1467

By Warren P. Strobel

Warren P. Strobel is a reporter at The Washington Post covering U.S. intelligence. He has written about U.S. security policies under seven presidents. He received numerous awards, and was portrayed in the movie "Shock and Awe," for his skeptical reporting on the decision to invade Iraq. Send him secure tips on Signal at 202 744 1312follow on X@wstrobel

7. C.I.A. Aims to Recruit Chinese Nationals With New Videos

After the downsizing will we have enough case officers to run all these new agents we will recruit? (assuming this video efforts have success).

C.I.A. Aims to Recruit Chinese Nationals With New Videos

The appeal reflects the priority John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, has placed on increasing the agency’s intelligence collection on China.

Listen to this article · 3:45 min Learn more

Share full article

The C.I.A. has placed an increasing emphasis on intelligence collection about China.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

By Julian E. Barnes

Julian E. Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters.

May 1, 2025

A pair of new C.I.A. videos released Thursday aim to encourage Chinese nationals to spy for the agency, appealing to their frustrations with, and fears of, Beijing’s government and its corruption.

The Mandarin-language videos are modeled on a series of videos the agency made in recent years asking Russians to spy for the United States, appeals that previous C.I.A. leaders said helped develop new sources.

The appeal to Chinese nationals reflects the priority John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, has placed on increasing the agency’s intelligence collection on China. In a note to C.I.A. officers last month, Mr. Ratcliffe said China was atop the agency’s priority list.

“No adversary in the history of our nation has presented a more formidable challenge or a more capable strategic competitor than the Chinese Communist Party,” Mr. Ratcliffe wrote. “It is intent on dominating the world economically, militarily and technologically, and it is aggressively trying to outcompete America in every corner of the globe.”

Mr. Ratcliffe has also told members of Congress that the C.I.A. needs to rebuild its human intelligence collection efforts: case officers recruiting Chinese officials to steal secrets from the Chinese government.

Last year the C.I.A. released instructions in Mandarin about how people in China could safely use the dark web to contact the agency. The text-only instructional video was viewed 900,000 times. While the Chinese internet is locked down and censored, American officials believe that more sophisticated Chinese officials know how to work around those controls.

A U.S. official said the agency would not have made the most recent, highly produced, videos if the instructional video had not worked.

In a statement Thursday, Mr. Ratcliffe said the new videos were aimed at “recruiting Chinese officials to steal secrets.” “Our agency must continue responding to this threat with urgency, creativity, and grit, and these videos are just one of the ways we are doing this,” Mr. Ratcliffe said.

One of the new videos released Thursday shows a midlevel official struggling in his daily life as he attends to a more senior official, who is living a comfortable life of fancy meals, clothes and cars. “The party raised us to believe that our dedication to the path they lead us on would bring prosperity to us all,” the midlevel official narrates. “But the gains of our collective efforts are indulged by a select few. So, I must forge my own path.”

The final scene shows the midlevel official using a mobile phone to securely contact the C.I.A.

The other video plays on fears that the Chinese government is arresting and ousting senior officials without explanation.

“I see my position rise within the party as those above me are cast aside,” the video’s narration says. “But now I realize that my fate is just as precarious.”

The video shows the senior official avoiding Chinese government agents closing in on him. As he fears for his career, the senior official says he must find ways to protect his family. The video closes again with images of the official contacting the C.I.A.

“My purpose remains the same,” the video concludes. “Only my path has changed. No matter what my fate may bring, my family will know a good life.”

Julian E. Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades.

See more on: John Ratcliffe, National Intelligence Estimates, Communist Party of China

8. Play It Again R.E.M.: Band Re-Releases Anthem In Support Of Radio Free Europe

Good for R.E.M.

The good thing about all this controversy is that when we get VOA and RFE/RL and RFA back on the air and doing their important work for America, the American people may have a better knowledge of the important work they do.

Now what bands can we get to play for VOA and RFA?

May 02, 2025

By RFE/RL

Play It Again R.E.M.: Band Re-Releases Anthem In Support Of Radio Free Europe

https://www.rferl.org/a/rem-releases-radio-free-europe-world-press-freedom-day/33403021.html

Rock band R.E.M. released a never-before-heard remix — “Radio Free Europe 2025” — in tribute to RFE/RL.

The release of the single “Radio Free Europe” in 1981 introduced the alternative rock band R.E.M. to the world.

It also reminded the world of the role the US-funded broadcaster plays in building democracy in countries where a free press is banned or not yet fully established.

To mark World Press Freedom day on May 3, the band has announced a special reissue of the single to celebrate the upcoming 75th anniversary of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty amid a fight over winding down operations at a number of US-funded broadcasters in what is seen by many as an attempt to silence pro-democracy media.

“Whether it’s music or a free press –- censorship anywhere is a threat to the truth everywhere. On World Press Freedom Day, I’m sending a shout-out to the brave journalists at Radio Free Europe,” said Michael Stipe, lead singer and a founding member of the band.

R.E.M. album art for their Radio Free Europe 2025 remix

RFE/RL, along with other government-funded broadcasters, such as Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio Marti), and Middle East Broadcasting Networks, have come under dire circumstances since US President Donald Trump signed an executive order that gutted the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM).

The USAGM is an independent government agency that oversees several US-funded broadcasters, which together distribute news and information in almost 50 languages to some 361 million people each week.

Hours after the executive order was published, a letter from the USAGM said the Congress-approved grant that funds RFE/RL, headquartered in the Czech capital, Prague, had been terminated, a move the broadcaster is currently fighting in court.

Trump, who has taken several moves to slash government spending since taking office for a second term in January, clashed with the USAGM over editorial independence and the direction of programming during his first term.

He has reiterated those concerns again since retaking office.

But supporters of the broadcasters say they are an important arm of US diplomacy and their silencing will be celebrated by the authoritarian regimes they expose.

Top Republican Mutinies Over Trump’s Meager Military Budget

The Daily Beast2 min

https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-republican-tears-into-trumps-plan-for-the-military/?utm

‘AXIS OF AGGRESSORS’

Roger Wicker wasn’t alone in objecting to the president’s proposed defense spending.

William Vaillancourt

Updated

May 2 2025

4:56PM EDT

Published

May 2 2025

4:48PM EDT

May 2, 2025

View Original

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker criticized Donald Trump‘s 2026 budget proposal, saying it didn’t provide enough to counter foreign threats.

Earlier Friday, the Trump administration unveiled its budget for the upcoming fiscal year, boosting defense spending by 13 percent to a total of just over $1 trillion.

Wicker called that insufficient.

“President Trump successfully campaigned on a Peace Through Strength agenda, but his advisers at the Office of Management and Budget were apparently not listening,” Wicker said in a statement.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX Hits Jackpot Under New Trump Budget PlanTO THE MOON!

Liam Archacki

“For the defense budget, OMB has requested a fifth year straight of Biden administration funding, leaving military spending flat, which is a cut in real terms,” he went on. “The Big, Beautiful Reconciliation Bill was always meant to change fundamentally the direction of the Pentagon on programs like Golden Dome, border support, and unmanned capabilities—not to paper over OMB’s intent to shred to the bone our military capabilities and our support to service members."

Wicker pointed to an “Axis of Aggressors”—chief among them, China—who would benefit from the decreased “negotiating leverage” that Trump would hold through his proposed budget.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

“We need a real Peace Through Strength agenda to ensure Xi Jinping does not launch a military war against us in Asia, beyond his existing military support to the Russians, the Iranians, Hamas, and the Houthis,” the Mississippi Republican urged.

When asked about Wicker’s criticism, Office of Management and Budget head Russ Vought called the 13 percent number a “very, very healthy increase,” per The Hill.

Wicker wasn’t the only Republican senator to make their concerns public.

Mitch McConnell similarly called the defense portion of the budget part of “OMB accounting gimmicks,” adding that they “won’t fool Congress.”

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag

“It is peculiar how much time the President’s advisors spend talking about restoring peace through strength, given how apparently unwilling they’ve been to invest accordingly in the national defense or in other critical instruments of national power,” he said in a statement.

Maine’s Susan Collins took issue with “the proposed freeze in our defense funding” as well.

The moderate senator also had “serious objections to... the proposed funding cuts to—and in some cases elimination of—programs like LIHEAP, TRIO, and those that support biomedical research,” she said, referring to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and several Education Department programs for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students.

Trump’s Next Budget Cuts Take Aim at Poor Toddlers‘CATASTROPHIC’

Liam Archacki

Also included in Trump’s budget are cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

10. U.S. Secretary of Commerce says the ‘new model’ is factory jobs for life—for you, your kids, and your grandkids

U.S. Secretary of Commerce says the ‘new model’ is factory jobs for life—for you, your kids, and your grandkids

BYEmma Burleigh

May 2, 2025 at 1:21 PM EDT

https://fortune.com/article/secretary-of-commerce-howard-lutnick-trump-tariffs-factory-jobs-gen-z-trade-work/?utm

“This is the new model, where you work in these plants for the rest of your life, and your kids work here, and your grandkids work here,” U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick says.

Chris Kleponis—CNP/Bloomberg/Getty Images

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick says factory gigs are the “great jobs of the future” that Gen Z could work in for the “rest” of their life—and so could their grandkids. But the workforce’s youngest cohort probably won’t be running to fill the roles.

Some white collar workers may be on the brink of layoffs thanks to AI, but the Secretary of Commerce says they will always have a place in America’s factories. As the U.S. puts up high tariffs and curbs immigration, the administration hopes to fuel an intergenerational manufacturing boom.

“It’s time to train people not to do the jobs of the past, but to do the great jobs of the future,” Howard Lutnick told CNBC this week.

“This is the new model, where you work in these plants for the rest of your life, and your kids work here, and your grandkids work here.”

While Lutnick said this is all part of President Trump’s larger plan to make America more independent from foreign imports and services, the administration’s targeted deportation of immigrants has left many domestic manufacturers scrambling for labor. To keep up with supply, people have to fill the plant jobs, and Lutnick thinks technicians tending to factory robots are the next hot gig.

“You gotta remember these plants, all these automated arms and stuff, they need to be fixed. They all need a technician to fix them,” he said. “This is tradecraft, this is high school-educated, great jobs.”

Robot technicians can earn $90k with just a high school diploma, Lutnick says

Robots are already starting to work side-by-side with humans on factory floors—and it’s causing panic amongst workers that the tech will eventually steal their jobs. But Lutnick snubbed that notion, arguing people will always be needed to repair the robots.

In fact, he advertises technician work as incredibly accessible and lucrative to U.S. citizens with just a high school diploma. Lutnick also pointed to local-led efforts to get community college students into the industry, using Arizona as an example of a state ramping up their efforts.

“You go to the community colleges, and you train people,” he said. “All these community colleges [in Arizona] are training people right now, technicians, and these are really good-paying jobs.”

The American businessman said technician jobs can pay anywhere from $70,000 to $90,000 from the jump—a promising gig with a low barrier to entry. Vocational schooling or apprenticeships are a nice touch on resumes, but only a high school diploma is required for most entry-level technician jobs. But it’s still not the dream for Gen Z turning to trade work.

Gen Z want blue-collar jobs—but not in a factory

Manufacturing was predicted to explode with job growth long before Trump’s immigration and tariff policies were implemented this year. This could be a huge win for Gen Z chasing trade work as a six-figure career path—if only they wanted the jobs.

Some 3.8 million new manufacturing opportunities are expected to open up by 2033, according to a 2024 report from Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute. However, half of these roles are predicted to go unfilled due to labor supply issues and changing career choices. And Gen Zers, set to make up 30% of America’s workforce by 2030, are turning their nose up at factory work in particular.

Only 14% of Gen Z say they’d consider industrial work as a career path, according to a 2023 study from Soter Analytics. About a quarter of the young workers think that these jobs aren’t particularly safe, and don’t offer flexibility. They’d rather be an HVAC worker, plumber, or carpenter—safer blue-collar gigs where workers have more control over their schedules.

With America’s increasingly dire need for manufacturing workers, Lutnick’s vision of technicians as an inter-generational career may be a pipe dream. After all, only 25% of Americans think they’d be better off working in a factory, according to a 2024 poll from the CATO Institute. It’ll take a lot of convincing to get young Americans to take the leap.

11. Trump Should Rein In Taiwan

But can he?

Conclusion:

Many in Washington will decry the idea of pressuring a U.S. partner and bargaining with a U.S. adversary. But the situation demands action. Trump should make clear that Lai must stop pushing the envelope on Taiwan’s independence in order to retain strong backing from the United States. If Bush could adopt a measured policy in the interest of preserving peace, so can Trump. The alternative is to watch the status quo continue to deteriorate, potentially to the point of no return.

Trump Should Rein In Taiwan

President Lai Ching-te’s rhetoric increases the risk of war with China.

By Christopher S. Chivvis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Foreign Policy · by Christopher S. Chivvis, Stephen Wertheim

https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/05/01/trump-taiwan-china-war-military/?utm

May 1, 2025, 5:23 PM

U.S. President George W. Bush will never be known for his restraint on the world stage, but when Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian sought to move the island closer toward independence in 2002, Bush sent his diplomats to rein in America’s democratic partner. The president then flatly told China, and the world, that the United States opposed Chen’s plans, which would provoke Beijing, fuel escalation, and increase the risk of a war that could draw in the United States.

Today, Taiwan has another hard-charging president, Lai Ching-te. In March, Lai designated China as a “foreign hostile force,” an unprecedented step, and unveiled 17 “proactive measures” to combat Chinese infiltration on the island. Beijing followed up with large military drills simulating a blockade and strikes against Taiwan’s ports and infrastructure.

Washington has rightly denounced China’s military escalations, but it has so far overlooked Lai’s subtler political escalations. The Trump administration should rein in Lai before he mistakes Washington’s passivity for approval and entangles the United States in a potentially calamitous war.

Since Lai took office last May, he has continually taken new steps to protect and assert Taiwan’s status as a “sovereign, independent nation,” to quote his inaugural address. Many of his actions, such as boosting Taiwan’s defense spending to target 3 percent of GDP and implementing civil-defense training programs, are welcome and indeed overdue. These measures improve the island’s defenses and strengthen cross-strait deterrence. Yet his other moves have predictably antagonized Beijing for no benefit.

Before deeming China a foreign hostile force, Lai gave several speeches that went significantly further than his predecessors in positioning Taiwan as a sovereign state that is separate from China. Lai is not proposing that Taiwan formally declare itself independent, a move that would cross Beijing’s clearest red line and command little popular support among Taiwanese. He is, however, engaging in classic “salami-slicing” tactics that go largely unnoticed to observers around the world, except the ones that matter most: the parties staring each other down across the strait.

Lai’s actions may boost his domestic support, but they increase the risk of a war that nobody should want. According to U.S. intelligence, Chinese President Xi Jinping has told his military to become capable of seizing the island by 2027 but may not necessarily intend to order such an operation. By moving Taiwan closer toward independence, however, Lai’s moves are greatly increasing the risks that Xi will. Xi could seize Taiwan’s outlying islands, order a blockade, or even invade, reasoning that if he does not act now, China will miss the chance to bring Taiwan under its authority forever.

Some will object that because China bears blame for coercing Taiwan, it would be perverse to pressure the latter as well. But there is no plausible exit from the dangerous, escalatory trajectory of cross-strait relations unless both sides find ways to climb down. The need to strengthen Taiwan’s defense capabilities should accentuate, not diminish, the need to avoid poking Beijing through rhetoric. Lai clearly sees things differently, and only the United States has the leverage to make him change course.

Unfortunately, Washington has so far allowed Lai to fly under its radar. U.S. President Donald Trump has yet to focus on Taiwan, and his administration has encouraged Lai’s defense buildup. Lai could thus be forgiven for thinking that America has his back as he steers Taiwan toward greater independence. But this conclusion would be premature. Taipei should not overestimate what the United States, under any president, would do in its defense. Polls show that scarcely more than one-third of Americans would favor going to war for Taiwan. Taiwan must make decisions with clear eyes and not assume the United States will fight World War III on its behalf.

To deliver the right message, Trump need not repeat the ugliness of his Oval Office spat with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Instead, he can simply say the United States wants China and Taiwan to resume the cross-strait dialogue that existed prior to 2016. Getting there would likely require Taipei to return to its long-standing position that there still exists “one China” of some kind. This is a useful fiction that Beijing should welcome yet costs Taiwan nothing but words. To get Lai to move in this direction might require Trump to make clear to him that Washington opposes any moves by Taiwan to inch closer and closer to independence. Given the costs the United States could pay in the event of a war, this would be a reasonable request.

When Trump meets with Xi, the leaders could also discuss a public exchange of assurances over Taiwan. The United States could, for example, affirm that it would accept any peaceful resolution of cross-strait differences and would under no circumstances support Taiwan’s independence, except with the consent of both sides. In return, China could declare that it has no timeline for seizing Taiwan and pull back on its military posturing and gray-zone operations targeting the island, offering a great relief to the Taiwanese people. Such assurances would serve to restrain Lai, and even if Beijing did not live up to its commitments, countries in the region, which are crucial to Taiwan’s defense, would see that China bears sole responsibility for any further escalation.

Many in Washington will decry the idea of pressuring a U.S. partner and bargaining with a U.S. adversary. But the situation demands action. Trump should make clear that Lai must stop pushing the envelope on Taiwan’s independence in order to retain strong backing from the United States. If Bush could adopt a measured policy in the interest of preserving peace, so can Trump. The alternative is to watch the status quo continue to deteriorate, potentially to the point of no return.

Foreign Policy · by Christopher S. Chivvis, Stephen Wertheim

12. Trump is destroying 100 years of competitive advantage in 100 days

This is one interpretation. I am looking for the objective and balanced counterpoint to this. When I find one I will forward it as well.

Opinion

Fareed Zakaria

Trump is destroying 100 years of competitive advantage in 100 days

Cuts to research and attacks on universities are handing global leadership to China.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/04/25/us-losing-competitive-edge-science/?utm

April 25, 2025

5 min

827

The exterior of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda in November 2020. (iStock)

As the Trump administration floods the zone with one radical shift after another, its tariffs have gotten the most attention. But the policy that could end up costing the United States even more in the long run is the White House’s assault on universities and on research more broadly.

Make sense of the latest news and debates with our daily newsletter

The U.S. has led the world in science for so long that it’s easy to believe this has always been one of the country’s natural strengths. In fact, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the U.S. was more a follower than a leader. British industrialists often complained about American businesses stealing their technology and violating their patents. In the first decades of the 20th century, the country that walked away with the most Nobel Prizes in science was Germany — with one-third of all the awards. Next was Britain with almost 20 percent. The United States took just 6 percent of the Nobels in science.

Three powerful forces transformed the scientific landscape in the mid-20th century. The first was Adolf Hitler, who drove a generation of the best scientific minds in Europe — many of them Jewish — to seek refuge in America. (Of Germany’s Nobel Prizes in science won by 1932, about a quarter were won by Jews, who made up less than 1 percent of the German population.) Many of these scientists came to America and formed the backbone of its scientific establishment. After the 1965 immigration reform, the United States continued to attract the best minds in the world — many from China and India — who would come to study, then stay and build research labs and technology companies.

Opinions about the Trump administration

Opinion

Erik Wemple

The White House is cozying up to influencers. Good luck with that.

May 2, 2025

Opinion

Dana Milbank

As wreckage piles up, Trump and his aides retreat to fantasyland

May 2, 2025

Opinion

David Ignatius

A Trumpworld power struggle muscles Waltz out

May 1, 2025

Opinion

JD Vance

JD Vance: What President Trump achieved in his first 100 days

May 2, 2025

Opinion

Fareed Zakaria

Think the trade war with China hurts now? Just wait.

May 2, 2025

Opinion

Editorial Board

Trump promised a better Iran deal. It’s looking a lot like Obama’s

May 1, 2025

Opinion

Dana Milbank

Trump has only himself to blame

April 30, 2025

Opinion

Donald G. McNeil Jr.

RFK Jr.’s view of autism is wrong — but profitable

May 1, 2025

Opinion

Ramesh Ponnuru

The roots of Trump’s ‘I alone can fix it’ presidency

April 30, 2025

Opinion

Philip Bump

America gave Trump another chance. He’s blowing it.

April 30, 2025

Opinion

Editorial Board

Trump helped elect a liberal leader in Canada

April 29, 2025

Opinion

Alyssa Rosenberg

Since when did conversation become ‘anti-American’?

April 30, 2025

Opinion

David Ignatius

Hegseth shouldn’t be using Signal, but the SCIF system is terrible

April 29, 2025

Opinion

Monica Hesse

What Trump doesn’t know about the cost of raising kids

April 30, 2025

Opinion

Dominic Pino

Not feeling tariff pains yet? Just wait.

April 30, 2025

Opinion

George F. Will

Trump’s gaudy-awful Oval Office is all too American

April 30, 2025

Opinion

Leana Wen

What Kennedy gets wrong about autism’s causes

April 29, 2025

Opinion

Catherine Rampell

No, thank you. I don’t want to appear on one of Trump’s ‘lists.’

April 29, 2025

Opinion

Jim Geraghty

Beware, consumers, tariffs are already damaging the supply chain

April 29, 2025

The second force was the two world wars. By 1945, Britain, France and, most of all, Germany had been devastated, with millions of citizens dead, cities reduced to rubble and governments crippled with mountains of debt. The Soviet Union came out of World War II victorious but lost about 24 million people in the conflict. The United States, by contrast, emerged from the conflict utterly dominant economically, technologically and militarily.

Follow Trump’s second term

The third force that propelled the United States forward was the visionary decision by the U.S. government to become a massive funder of basic science. During the 1950s, total research and development spending in the U.S. reached nearly 2.5 percent of gross domestic product, the most of such spending on the planet. And it did so by creating an innovative model. Universities around the country, public and private, competed for government research funds. The federal government wrote the checks but did not try to run the programs itself. That competition and freedom created the modern American scientific establishment, the most successful in human history.

All three of these forces are now being reversed. The Trump administration is at war with the country’s leading universities, threatening them with hostile takeovers and withholding billions of dollars in research funding. America’s crown jewels of science, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, are being gutted.

The United States’ second advantage, towering over the rest of the world, has obviously ebbed since 1945. But it is worth pointing out that during the past decade, China has become the world leader in many key measures of science. China has a larger share than the U.S. of articles published in the leading 82 scientific journals that the Nature Index tracks. In engineering and technology articles, China is also now well ahead of the U.S. In patent applications, there is no longer any contest: China receives almost half of all applications in the world. Even in higher education, China has gone from having 27 universities in the top 500 in 2010 to 76 in 2020 by one measure. The U.S. has gone in the other direction, from 154 to 133.

The final advantage that the United States has, and one that China could not match, is that it attracts the world’s best and brightest. Between 2000 and 2014, more than one-third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in science were immigrants. In 2019, almost 40 percent of all software developers were immigrants, and in the major cancer centers, in 2015 the proportion of immigrants ranged from about 30 percent (Fred Hutchinson) to 62 percent (MD Anderson.)

But this is changing fast. Hundreds of visas are being revoked, students are being rounded up to be deported, and graduate students and researchers from China now face the prospect of constant FBI investigations. China has created generous incentives to welcome its best and brightest back home. Many others are choosing to go elsewhere — from Europe to Canada to Australia. Last month, Nature asked its readers who are American researchers whether they were thinking of leaving the country. Of the more than 1,600 who responded, a stunning 75 percent said they were considering it.

These are the building blocks of America’s extraordinary strength, created over the last 100 years. They are now being dismantled in just 100 days.

What readers are saying

The comments express significant concern about the Trump administration's impact on America's scientific leadership. Many commenters highlight a "brain drain," with talented researchers and students leaving the U.S. due to funding cuts and a hostile environment for science. This... Show more

This summary is AI-generated. AI can make mistakes and this summary is not a replacement for reading the comments.

All comments 827

By Fareed Zakaria

Fareed Zakaria writes a foreign affairs column for The Post. He is also the host of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS.follow on X@FareedZakaria

13. U.S. Economy Shows Remarkable Resilience in Face of Trade Turmoil

Some good news here. This should be what we want - a resilient economy that can weather any storm.

Multiple charts/graphics at the link:

https://www.wsj.com/economy/us-economy-data-direction-trump-bb5672eb?st=wWdhaJ&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

U.S. Economy Shows Remarkable Resilience in Face of Trade Turmoil

Trump’s policies have created headwinds, but the U.S. economy is pushing through them

Illustration: Rachel Mendelson/WSJ, iStock (3), Getty Images, AP

By Jeanne WhalenFollow and Justin LahartFollow

May 2, 2025 9:00 pm ET

Key Points

What's This?

The U.S. economy is showing significant resilience in the face of enormous pressure.
Employers added more jobs than many economists expected last month, and the low unemployment rate held steady. The stock market has rallied sharply from its April lows.
Still, President Trump’s policies are causing unease among consumers, businesses and investors. Tariffs on Chinese imports are causing cargo shipments to plummet.

The world’s most powerful economy is showing remarkable resilience in the face of enormous pressure.

Employers added more jobs than many economists expected last month, and the low unemployment rate held steady. The U.S. economy contracted in the first quarter, but the result was distorted by a rush of imports that offset generally solid demand. The stock market rallied sharply from its April lows.

Yet real turmoil is threatening that strong foundation. President Trump’s ever-changing tariff policies, government cuts and immigration restrictions are disrupting trade and sparking deep unease among consumers, businesses and investors. Trump’s 145% tariffs on Chinese imports are causing cargo shipments from China to plummet, prompting major retailers to warn of likely price hikes and even shortages of some goods. In early April, economists forecast the likelihood of a recession in the coming year to be twice as high as it was at the start of the year.

Economists’ probability of a recession in the next year

100%

Trump’s inauguration

2015

’20

'25

Source: Wall Street Journal survey of economists

Rosie Ettenheim/WSJ

At the moment, however, things are still looking surprisingly good.

“For another month, the actual data coming from a key U.S. jobs report failed to justify the bad vibes and anxiety that preceded it,” said Cory Stahle, an economist at Indeed Hiring Lab. “Against most expectations, the U.S. labor market stayed strong in April, seemingly immune to mounting uncertainty and tariff-related volatility.”

The pace of job creation has been steady, with the economy adding an average of 155,000 jobs over the past three months, only marginally lower than 2024’s average monthly gain of 168,000 jobs. Hiring has slowed, but businesses have so far been reluctant to cut workers, and the level of initial jobless claims remains low.

Job openings per unemployed person

Trump’s inauguration

2019

’20

’25

’21

’22

’23

’24

Note: Data is seasonally adjusted

Source: Labor Department

Rosie Ettenheim/WSJ

GDP’s first-quarter contraction, by an annualized 0.3%, was largely caused by importers rushing to bring goods to the U.S. ahead of tariffs. But demand remained solid. Consumer spending, the largest source of demand in the economy, slowed to the lowest pace since mid-2023, but still grew at a 1.8% rate over the previous quarter.

Trade’s contribution to quarterly change in real GDP

3 pct. pts

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

2019

'20

'21

'22

'23

'24

'25

Note: Seasonally adjusted

Source: Commerce Department

Rosie Ettenheim/WSJ

Spending by the federal government fell, driven by a decline in military-related purchases, but business spending was robust.

With economic data hanging tough, investors have pushed back expectations for when the Federal Reserve will lower interest rates. Interest-rate futures now imply there is a little less than a 40% chance the Fed policymakers will cut rates by their June meeting, down from nearly 70% a month ago. The Fed is almost certain to leave rates on hold at its meeting next week.

Still, worries about tariffs, job security and possible price increases are causing some Americans to tighten their belts. American Airlines and Delta Air Lines said domestic leisure travel has softened, with the most price-sensitive travelers in particular cutting back. Pampers maker Procter & Gamble and OxiClean maker Church & Dwight reported that U.S. sales growth slowed in the first quarter. Restaurant chains including Chipotle Mexican Grill and Starbucks have experienced slower U.S. sales. McDonald’s said first-quarter sales at U.S. locations that have been open more than a year fell by 3.6% from a year earlier.

First-quarter sales at McDonald’s fell. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

“Low- and middle-income consumers, in particular, are being weighed down by the cumulative impact of inflation and heightened anxiety about the economic outlook,” McDonald’s Chief Executive Christopher Kempczinski said on an earnings call.

Uncertainty over Trump’s policies has prompted many big companies to yank their profit forecasts for the year, and to step up cost cutting. General Motors this week said tariffs will wipe out up to a quarter of its net profit this year. Apple warned that current tariff plans would add $900 million to costs this quarter, and said that figure could rise.

Share of consumers expecting higher unemployment in the next year

80%

RECESSION

1980

'85

'90

'95

2000

'05

'10

'15

'20

'25

Source: University of Michigan

Rosie Ettenheim/WSJ

Without the resources of their larger counterparts, small businesses could get particularly slammed by scarce or higher-cost goods, worries Apollo Global Management chief economist Torsten Slok. “The important statistic in that context is that 80% of employment in the U.S. economy is in businesses with less than 500 workers,” he said.

Surveys of consumers and businesses are flashing red. The Conference Board said its index of consumer confidence fell to its lowest level last month since May 2020, shortly after the pandemic hit. People are deeply worried about the job market, with 65% of Americans surveyed by the University of Michigan last month saying they expect unemployment to rise over the next year. Manufacturing and service-firm surveys conducted by regional Federal Reserve Banks show companies expect to rein in capital spending.

Capital spending expectations

-10

-20

2015

'20

'25

Note: Data are indexed. Readings above zero mean businesses expect more capital spending. Below zero means they expect less.

Source: Federal Reserve Banks of New York, Philadelphia, Kansas City, Richmond and Dallas

Rosie Ettenheim/WSJ

As Trump entered office, many manufacturers “were emboldened or bullish at first, with the potential for tax reform, permitting reform and regulatory reform on top of what was a pretty decent economy at the time,” said Mark Denzler, chief executive of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association. “And then the tariff issue came and created a real whack of uncertainty.”

One German company in Illinois was getting ready to buy an expensive piece of manufacturing equipment from China that would have created new jobs in its factory. But now because of the extra import tariff cost it isn’t moving ahead with the purchase, Denzler said.

General Motors says U.S. tariffs will cause its net profit this year to fall by up to 25%. Photo: Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Many manufacturers are stuck in similar paralysis. The Institute for Supply Management on Thursday said that manufacturing activity contracted for a second month in April, with businesses reporting they have been rattled by tariffs.

Las Vegas visitor volume, change since previous year

10%

-5

-10

2024

2025

Source: Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority

Rosie Ettenheim/WSJ

Tourism-related measures have also taken a hit. There were 7.8% fewer visitors to Las Vegas in March than a year earlier, according to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. Canadians, long the top source of international visitors to the U.S., are boycotting American vacations to protest Trump’s threats to their sovereignty. Fewer travelers from Europe are coming to the U.S.

A preliminary reading on retail sales from the Chicago Fed suggests that spending moderated last month following a pre-tariff flurry. Based on measures including foot traffic and card transactions, retail sales excluding autos fell by an inflation-adjusted 0.5% in April from the previous month, after rising 1% in March.

Worries about a recession were rising sharply as of early last month, when economists polled by The Wall Street Journal put the probability of a downturn occurring within the next year at 45%, versus 22% in January. The survey concluded April 8, the day before Trump suspended some tariffs for 90 days while ratcheting up levies on China.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Where do you think the economy is headed? Join the conversation below.

Those odds aren’t as high as the 63% economists predicted in October 2022—a forecast that didn’t come true. But JPMorgan Chase economist Mike Feroli reckons the economy is in greater peril now and that many economists are simply nervous about getting another recession call wrong.

“Absent the experience of 2022 and 2023, I think people would say, ‘Oh, we’re definitely going into a recession,’ ” he said.

Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, has lowered his recession odds from 60% in early April to 45%. That isn’t because of anything he has seen in the recent economic data, but because he believes the White House will ratchet back tariffs against China and reduce levies against other countries.

While concerns about Fed interest rate increases fueled economists’ worries in 2022, the economy still had a head of steam coming out of the pandemic, with government stimulus and an end to lockdowns fueling fierce demand.

Much of that post-Covid rocket fuel has worn off, leaving today’s economy more exposed to shocks.

The trade tension Trump has stoked is also hampering some U.S. exports. Gary Wishnatzki, owner of a large berry farm in Florida, said Canadian outrage over Trump has caused supermarkets there to stop buying his fruit, forcing him to find new domestic buyers. In recent years, Canada accounted for about 10% of Wish Farms’ sales, he said.

Yet he added that a bigger problem for the farm is one of the economy’s longer running problems: a shortage of workers.

Canadian outrage over Trump has led supermarkets there to stop buying berries from Wish Farms in Florida. Photo: Wish Farms

Andrew Logan, chief executive of Logan Clutch Corporation in Cleveland, said the manufacturer’s difficulties finding skilled labor have left it better prepared to deal with tariffs. The machinery-parts company has invested heavily in automation as it has struggled to find workers, which has also helped it lower production costs—a big benefit now as tariffs threaten to raise some input prices, Logan said.

The company buys most of its materials in the U.S., which further protects it from tariffs. “But the real challenge will be when more companies begin to onshore goods and services,” Logan said. “This will likely put a strain on the internal U.S. supply chain, and drive up costs, and eventually prices.”

Write to Jeanne Whalen at Jeanne.Whalen@wsj.com and Justin Lahart at Justin.Lahart@wsj.com

Appeared in the May 3, 2025, print edition as 'Hiring Bucks Trade Turmoil, But Economic Clouds Loom'.

14. A Not So Radical Trump Budget

So the leviathan may not be tamed.

A Not So Radical Trump Budget

The proposal for fiscal 2026 includes useful reform in a narrow share of the federal Leviathan.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-budget-spending-defense-entitlements-white-house-48cedee7?mod=hp_opin_pos_6#cxrecs_s

By The Editorial Board

May 2, 2025 6:21 pm ET

Photo: Rahmat Gul/Associated Press

The White House on Friday released its initial budget for the next fiscal year that aims to shrink the federal Leviathan. Great, but don’t believe the Beltway fear and loathing that this is somehow a radical change in government.

Give the Trump Administration credit for looking under every sofa cushion for savings and targeting bloated programs that for too long have been untouchable. The budget highlights how many federal programs and agencies are unnecessary, redundant and ineffective.

***

The headline is that non-defense discretionary spending—the kind approved by Congress each year—would decrease by $163 billion. This would be partly offset by a $44 billion boost for homeland security. Hiring more asylum officers and immigration judges would be useful, but does the U.S. really need to build a wall to control the border given that apprehensions under Mr. Trump are now negligible?

The press is portraying the Administration’s budget as a starvation diet. But non-defense discretionary spending has increased by 45% over the last six years—nearly twice as much as inflation. The budget’s proposed cuts would hold spending flat.

The much-needed reforms include turning housing rental assistance programs into state block grants with two-year eligibility caps for able-bodied adults to ensure most of the money goes to the elderly and disabled. The budget also proposes consolidating sundry worker-training programs and eliminating the Job Corps, which has lousy outcomes.

President Trump also wants to give states and local school districts more flexibility by consolidating dozens of K-12 grant programs and nixing others that don’t improve student learning. Also on the chopping block is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which subsidizes states with high energy costs owing to their own climate policies.

Tens of billions of dollars for climate spending would be axed. Ditto more than a dozen small agencies, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Inter-American Foundation and the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Another useful budget reform is eliminating “harm reduction” substance abuse programs that provide “safe smoking kits and supplies” and “syringes” for drug users. The Administration plans to cut $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health, which could hurt innovation, though the agency currently spends too much on overhead and social-science research.

The Administration isn’t slashing programs across the board. The Federal Aviation Administration would get more money to hire more air traffic controllers, boost salaries and update outdated systems. This could reduce flight delays and cancellations, especially at congested airports, though it would be better to privatize air traffic control as in Canada.

A disappointment is the defense proposal, which could be something of a bait and switch. It advertises a $119.3 billion increase, but that includes the $150 billion one-time increase in Congress’s reconciliation bill that we touted earlier this week. Roger Wicker, the discerning Senate Armed Services Chairman, says the White House is really proposing “a budget of $892.6 billion, which is a cut in real terms.” Congress will have to address this.

The elephant in the budget that the Administration doesn’t address is entitlements. This so-called mandatory spending is projected to increase by $2.4 trillion over the next decade under the Congressional Budget Office’s latest baseline. That’s more than five times as much as the increase in discretionary spending. This also assumes the 2017 tax reform’s bigger child tax credit and the Inflation Reduction Act’s sweetened ACA subsidies expire this year, which seems unlikely.

Mr. Trump has ruled out “cuts” to Medicare and Social Security, but mandatory spending also includes Medicaid, ObamaCare subsidies, veterans’ benefits, food stamps and other “income security” payments. There are bigger savings to be found in reforming such programs than in discretionary spending accounts.

One ripe target is the hospital provider taxes that states use to extract more money from the feds, including to pay for homeless housing, music lessons for children and non-traditional medicine. Others include loopholes in food-stamp work requirements and veteran disability payments for chronic diseases that aren’t caused by military service.

Discretionary spending represents only 26% of the entire federal budget these days, compared with 34% in 2000. That trend shows how much the Trump budgeters are fighting over an ever-shrinking corner of a $7 trillion state.

15. Trump Is Undermining 3 Key US Advantages Over China

The American Asymmetric Advantage (AAA) – “America First, Allies Always”

If we want to be successful in competition or achieve victory in war with China we need our allies.

Excerpts:

These three elements – alliances, diversity, and academic freedom – are not only critical, but they are also deeply interconnected.

For example, consider Apple, one of the most profitable companies not only in the United States but worldwide. Its success is rooted in a remarkable capacity for innovation, itself made possible by a robust and free scientific ecosystem. That ecosystem, in turn, is nourished by an open and multicultural society that draws talent from every corner of the globe. At the same time, Apple’s global reach has been enabled by the United States’ economic and military alliances, particularly with wealthy nations within its sphere of influence – first and foremost, Europe. Of course, Apple has also benefited from globalization and the exploitation of low-cost labor in the global periphery, but even that is a consequence of the liberal, rules-based international order built by the United States – an order in which alliances and multilateralism have played a central role.

These pillars are not relics of the past; they remain the key comparative advantages in the competition for primacy with China. And if they collapse, so too might the U.S. claim to global leadership.

Trump Is Undermining 3 Key US Advantage

Trump Is Undermining 3 Key US Advantages Over China

U.S. global leadership has been underpinned by its alliances, the openness of its multicultural society, and the freedom of its scientific community. All are under siege.

https://thediplomat.com/2025/05/trump-is-undermining-3-key-us-advantages-over-china/

By Gabriele Manca

May 01, 2025

U.S. President Donald Trump addresses a Joint Session of Congress in Washington, D.C., March 4, 2025.

Credit: Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok

In recent decades, China has changed at an extraordinary pace, so quickly that many have struggled to keep up with its transformation. Many people, especially those over 50, often cling to an outdated perception of China. If you ask them what they think of the country, they will likely mention cheap, low-quality products produced by millions of factory workers. In their eyes, China is still the world’s toy workshop, the land of copycat products and low-end manufacturing. That may still be true in part, but it is now only a small fragment of a much larger picture.

China continues to be the factory of the world, as its near-trillion-dollar trade surplus in 2024 attests. But it is also a technological superpower, leading the world in strategic sectors that define both the present and the future: batteries, electric vehicles, green technology, 5G, advanced nuclear reactors, and more. It now produces more active patents and top-cited scientific publications each year than the United States. China indeed remains behind the U.S. when it comes to “zero-to-one” innovation – creating something entirely new from scratch. But it has become extraordinarily effective at advancing innovation, refining and scaling ideas that originate elsewhere. To describe China today merely as a country that copies the West is not just inaccurate; it is dangerously simplistic. China is now a powerhouse in manufacturing, technology, and innovation.

And yet, despite this astonishing rise, the United States has, until now, remained on top. There are many reasons for that. For one, by the 1970s, the U.S. was already the world’s leading economy and innovation hub, while China was only beginning to recover from the devastation of the Mao Zedong era. But beyond historical timing, and many other crucial elements, the United States’ global leadership has been underpinned by three structural advantages that have defined the post-World War II era: the ability to forge alliances, the openness of a multicultural society, and a scientific community free to explore and innovate.

While it would be overly complex to analyze every factor contributing to the United States’ sustained dominance, it is helpful to focus on three foundational pillars and how President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling them. This undermines the very advantages that have positioned the United States as a global leader.

Allied Scale

Alliances have historically been one of the United States’ greatest force multipliers, amplifying its power, projecting its influence, and helping it achieve global scale. While China possesses an immense internal scale today, thanks to its demographic size, industrial capacity, and centralized governance, the United States has achieved something far more potent: allied scale.

Through its alliances, the U.S. extended its military reach, built global intelligence networks, secured access to foreign markets, and internationalized its values. The web of post-war alliances allows Washington to project its interests far beyond what its size alone would allow. Alliances are not just about security. They also form the backbone of the liberal economic order, enabling U.S. firms like Apple to thrive in affluent markets tightly integrated into the U.S. sphere of influence.

But Trump is tearing apart this network. He does not view alliances as tools for expanding scale and influence, but as one-sided arrangements in which the United States is exploited. His transactional view of diplomacy – threatening NATO withdrawal, insulting long-standing allies, and cozying up to autocrats – has undermined trust and cooperation. At a time when the West should be tightening ranks to face China’s growing global reach, Trump is weakening the very architecture that could offer the decisive edge.

The United States, unlike China, cannot afford to go it alone. Without alliances, the U.S. will be outpaced by a rival that is not only larger but increasingly more integrated across authoritarian lines. As Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi recently argued in Foreign Affairs, the idea that the United States can confront the Chinese challenge without the support of its partners is strongly misguided.

Diversity as a Strategic Asset

The United States has always drawn its strength from its diversity. A multicultural society has been central not only to American identity but to its competitive advantage. People from every corner of the world have come to the U.S. in search of opportunity, bringing with them skills, knowledge, and ambition. These flows of human capital have enriched American culture, driven economic growth, and crucially, powered its innovation engine.

From Silicon Valley to the arts, from Wall Street to Hollywood, multiculturalism has created a dynamic, hybrid society capable of constant reinvention. U.S. soft power – the allure of its universities, music, films, and democratic ideals – has been inseparable from its openness to the world.

China, by contrast, is an extremely closed society. Foreigners make up an even lower share of the population than in North Korea, and the political system is built on conformity, not cosmopolitanism. While China has made huge strides in innovation and industrial capability, it lacks the universal appeal and cultural reach of the United States.

And here lies a key U.S. advantage that Trump is now methodically dismantling. His war on immigration, mass deportations, bans, and fear campaigns targeting foreign students and workers have had a chilling effect. Talented people who once dreamed of building their future in the U.S. will now increasingly look elsewhere. The message is clear: the United States is no longer a welcoming place. And without this steady influx of talent, the U.S. will lose in the long run one of the fundamental engines of its greatness. In trying to “protect” the country from the world, Trump is robbing the U.S. of the very diversity that made it exceptional.

The Power of a Free Scientific Community

If there is a single factor that has underpinned U.S. leadership in technology and military power, it is the freedom of its scientific community. The United States became the world’s innovation superpower by creating a system in which research was not dictated by the state but shaped by curiosity, open debate, and collaboration across borders. The post-war decision to massively fund university research led to a golden era of breakthroughs – technologies that transformed the civilian and defense sectors alike. This system worked because it was built on autonomy, meritocracy, and international openness. Academic freedom was not a luxury – it was the foundation of U.S. power.

Trump, however, sees universities not as national assets, but as enemies in a culture war. Under his leadership, federal grants have been suspended or revoked on ideological grounds. Top-tier institutions like Columbia, Princeton, Penn, and Harvard are being targeted because they are seen as politically hostile. The Trump administration has frozen billions in funding to institutions that fail to align with its values.

This unprecedented politicization of research undermines the entire logic of academic excellence. Trump is not simply attacking institutions; he is undermining the ecosystem that made the United States the global leader in science and technology. In a contest with China, where scientific progress is closely tied to state priorities, the U.S. edge lies in freedom. Trump is jeopardizing that edge, choking the very engine that drives U.S. innovation. If the freedom to ask hard questions and pursue difficult truths is lost, so too is the strategic future of the United States.

Conclusion

These three elements – alliances, diversity, and academic freedom – are not only critical, but they are also deeply interconnected.

For example, consider Apple, one of the most profitable companies not only in the United States but worldwide. Its success is rooted in a remarkable capacity for innovation, itself made possible by a robust and free scientific ecosystem. That ecosystem, in turn, is nourished by an open and multicultural society that draws talent from every corner of the globe. At the same time, Apple’s global reach has been enabled by the United States’ economic and military alliances, particularly with wealthy nations within its sphere of influence – first and foremost, Europe. Of course, Apple has also benefited from globalization and the exploitation of low-cost labor in the global periphery, but even that is a consequence of the liberal, rules-based international order built by the United States – an order in which alliances and multilateralism have played a central role.

These pillars are not relics of the past; they remain the key comparative advantages in the competition for primacy with China. And if they collapse, so too might the U.S. claim to global leadership.

Authors

Guest Author

Gabriele Manca

Gabriele Manca serves the editorial board of the Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI) and occasionally writes as a freelancer, focusing primarily on geoeconomic and geopolitical issues in Asia, particularly China. He has contributed to various media outlets and think tanks, including The Diplomat, Sky TG24, HuffPost, and Eastwest.

The views expressed here are the author’s alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Italian Institute for International Political Studies.

16. US security policy in Asia shows some continuity in sea of change

Conclusion:

A US grand strategy that reconciles “America First” with US leadership of an Asian security architecture is possible, but we have not seen it during Trump’s first hundred days. Until that happens the two lines of effort will work against each other.

Here is my "reconciliation:" recognize the American Asymmetric Advantage (AAA) – “America First, Allies Always”

US security policy in Asia shows some continuity in sea of change - Asia Times

But Trump’s tariff war and alliance skepticism threaten further progress in building regional architecture to deter China

asiatimes.com · by Denny Roy · May 1, 2025

The first 100 days of the second Donald Trump Administration produced upheaval in many quarters, but one policy remains steady: building a regional defense architecture to deter aggression by China.

Further movement in this direction, however, is threatened by collateral damage from aspects of the new US government’s approach to foreign policy that break with the pre-Trump era. Chief among these are the “tariff war” and alliance skepticism.

How did we get to where we are now? During the first Trump Administration (2017-2021), US policy toughened toward Beijing as Washington concluded that deep economic engagement with China was not working as planned.

Increased wealth was supposed to liberalize and pacify China. Instead, the Chinese government under Xi Jinping was increasingly authoritarian at home and aggressive abroad. The pandemic drew attention to America’s dependence on Chinese supplies of vital supplies.

Trump’s government characterized China as more of an adversary than a partner. The US imposed tariffs on some Chinese imports and began working to reroute global supply chains to reduce China’s global economic centrality. At the same time, Trump expressed contempt for US alliances, arguing that allies benefited disproportionately while underpaying for US protection.

At the same time, Trump departed from the mainstream of postwar US foreign policy in important ways. He rejected American exceptionalism, sidelined liberal values as a lodestar for US foreign relationships and expressed affinity for authoritarian state leaders such as Xi, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un.

Trump was highly critical of US global commitments, particularly the US alliances in both Europe and Asia. Instead of free trade, he touted tariffs as the solution to America’s trade deficit.

President Joe Biden (2021-2025) extended and increased some of Trump’s tariffs on China. His administration also placed restrictions on Chinese access to advanced technology and pressured other governments to do the same.

Biden, however, reversed Trump by returning to a more conventional view of alliances as force multipliers that produce a valuable if intangible strategic return on American investment.

The foreign policy of Trump II is dominated by two familiar themes from his first term: enthusiasm for tariffs and disdain for alliances. What is surprising is the intensity with which he has implemented those predilections.

The entire world is now under relatively high US tariffs (10%, compared with an average US rate of 2.5% in 2024) with the threat of much higher “reciprocal tariffs” that would kick in as soon as May.

And America has effectively abandoned NATO – by antagonizing Western Europe and Canada, by declaring that NATO members can no longer count on the US to defend them and by accommodating Russia despite Putin’s aggression against Ukraine.

The first three months of Trump II have seen Washington reaffirm its intention to strengthen a counter-China defensive military coalition. As he was dealing with the fallout of the Signal scandal, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made his first trip to Asia in March. He passed on South Korea, likely because its government was under an acting president while Yoon Suk-yeol was in impeachment proceedings.

In Japan, Hegseth said the US plans to increase joint training and cooperation in developing new weapons technologies with Japan, and will also complete the upgrade of the US military headquarters in Japan from an administrative office to a military command post, a decision first announced by the Biden Administration.

In the Philippines, Hegseth reiterated that the US-Philippine defense treaty covers attacks on Philippine government ships or aircraft anywhere in the South China Sea – an important commitment given Chinese harassment of Philippine navy and coast guard vessels in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, over which Beijing claims sovereignty.

Hegseth also announced that the US and the Philippines plan to co-produce some military systems and that the US will deploy advanced sea drones and NMESIS anti-ship missiles in Philippines territory. NMESIS indeed appeared in the Batanes Islands in the Luzon Strait south of Taiwan during a US-Philippines military exercise in April. These missiles could theoretically target Chinese warships attempting to encircle Taiwan.

The AUKUS agreement, whereby the US and the UK will help provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, is still on track, albeit somewhat shakily. On January 29, Australia made a US$500 million down payment – part of a total commitment of US$3 billion to build up the US capacity to manufacture submarines.

The shaky part includes uncertainty regarding how much Trump supports or even knows about AUKUS. On February 7, Hegseth said that “the president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS” and that Hegseth himself had “hope” that the US would deliver the promised submarines on time. A few days later, asked during a press conference if he had discussed AUKUS with the visiting UK Prime Minister, Trump replied, “What does that mean?”

While the Trump White House ordered a three-month freeze of foreign aid programs upon taking office, Secretary of State Marco Rubio approved exceptions to the freeze that included US$870 million in military assistance for Taiwan and $336 million for the Philippines.

US Navy warships transited the Taiwan Strait in February and April, indicating that Washington is still willing to annoy Beijing to demonstrate an interest in Taiwan’s security.

But while the Pentagon’s agenda in the Asia-Pacific region has seen little interruption in the transition from the Biden to the Trump Administration, it is partly undercut by Washington’s larger foreign policy shifts. Not surprisingly, rent-seeking and abandonment of friends in other parts of the world are adverse to nurturing alliances.

The tariff issue is a double whammy for US allies Japan and South Korea. Trump is unhappy with both countries for two reasons. First, they have trade surpluses with the US. Second, Trump thinks they are defense free-riders.

The governments of both Japan and South Korea have said they want to keep military issues separate from trade talks with the US. Unfortunately for them, Trump extolls the idea of “one stop shopping,” which means “bringing up other subjects that are not covered by Trade and Tariffs, and getting them negotiated also.”

The tariff issue brings delegations from theoe two countries to Washington for urgent negotiations. The Japanese, who face a possible additional 24% tariff, came to town on April 16. The Koreans, hoping to avert a planned 25% reciprocal tariff, followed on April 24. Such meetings allow the Trump team to re-visit the contentious matters of how much these allies spend on defense and how much they contribute toward the cost of hosting US military bases.

Both countries have already signed multi-year host nation support agreements with the Biden Administration. Under a deal good until 2027, Japan pays US$1.7 billion per year toward the US bases, plus an additional US$3 billion this year for other costs including construction for US Marines moving from Okinawa to Guam.

South Korea pays the US a little over $1 billion annually in host nation support under an agreement valid until 2029.

Trump, however, has recently complained that the Japanese “don’t pay anything” for US protection and that the South Koreans should pay $10 billion per year. The likely result is more stress on these alliances.

Japan is especially undeserving of such treatment. Tokyo has made itself more useful to the US strategic agenda in recent years by

working toward raising its defense spending from 1% to 2% of GDP,
signing a deal to buy 400 US-made Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles,
accelerating plans to develop and deploy its own precision missiles that can hit ships and ground targets,
establishing a Joint Operations Command to improve coordination among the different branches of the Japanese armed forces and
strengthening its defenses in the Ryukyu Islands near Taiwan.

In Australia, the new US government has seriously damaged confidence in US reliability as an ally. Prominent Australian policy thinkers are arguing that their country can no longer count on American help in times of danger.

The Australian public feels the same. In the middle of last year, 61 percent of Australian respondents said they could “rely on the United States for defense and national security.” Polled on that same question in April, 66 percent answered in the negative.

The disillusionment down under stems from two distinctively Trump policies. The first is Washington’s rough handling of supposed friends such as NATO member countries and Ukraine.

The second antagonizing policy is the tariffs. While Washington characterized its tariffs as a means of addressing America’s many bilateral trade deficits, the US has a trade surplus with Australia. Australians nevertheless got the same tariffs as most of the rest of the world: 10% on everything, plus an additional 25% on steel and aluminum products.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argued that “a reciprocal tariff” in Australia’s case “would be zero.” Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong asked for an exemption from the steel and aluminum tariff, but Trump rebuffed the appeal.

The damage is not yet fatal. In an opinion piece published in an Australian national newspaper, PRC Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian gracelessly invited Aussies to “join hands” with China to “stop the hegemonic and bullying behavior of the US.” Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles shot back, “I don’t think we’ll be holding China’s hand.”

A US grand strategy that reconciles “America First” with US leadership of an Asian security architecture is possible, but we have not seen it during Trump’s first hundred days. Until that happens the two lines of effort will work against each other.

Denny Roy is a senior fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu.

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

asiatimes.com · by Denny Roy · May 1, 2025

17. America is in Asia, but not of Asia

A very provocative essay. He really takes Elbridge Colby to task.

Graphics at the link.

https://asiatimes.com/2025/05/america-is-in-asia-but-not-of-asia/

Excerpts:

Of course, this alternate universe America would be very different and we could have much fun speculating on the endless counterfactual possibilities. Suffice it to say that a United States with over 100 million Asian Americans would forever cement the republic as not just a Pacific but an Asian power.

That, for better or for worse, is not the America we have today. The United States today may be a Pacific power, but it is certainly not Asian. America became a Pacific power after it, fearing being shut out of the opium trade by European powers, sent Commodore Perry and his black ships to force open Japan in 1852.

Ever since, the United States has been a military presence in Asia through subsequent kerfuffles like the Second Opium War, the Boxer Rebellion, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

As time goes on, it is becoming ever more apparent that the United States is in Asia, but it is not of Asia. Korea is divided. So is China. Vietnam, after much carnage, was abandoned. And Japan has been kneecapped into economic stagnation and bonsaied into cultural anomie.

And now, the United States has just picked an economic war with China, which it is highly likely to lose and lose spectacularly (see here). The danger of America being in Asia but not of Asia is that it is playing on alien terrain, subject to information asymmetries, and prone to bad judgment.

...

America is falling behind not because China is modernizing its military, but precisely because America wasted trillions of dollars on unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now threatens to militarily challenge the biggest player that ever was.

Colby calls himself a realist, though it’s not clear that he knows exactly what he is. Just like America does not know what it is. America may want to be an Asian power, but that ship sailed in 1882. America is not Asian – it chose not to be on more than one occasion – and has demonstrated a limited capacity to understand any region outside its borders, even Canada.

To devise realist policies for Asian security requires expertise on the region’s society and politics. Otherwise, one is not weighing costs and benefits but merely pointing in ideological directions.

But nowadays that passes for “realist” thinking among America’s Asia “experts.” When all is said and done, America is in Asia because it finds itself in Asia. There is no reason: Like international school students who don’t learn the local language, they are there because that’s where they are. Not everything has a reason or lasts.

America is in Asia, but not of Asia - Asia Times

America decided 143 years ago not to be an Asian nation and its confused presence in the region is coming to a close

asiatimes.com · by Han Feizi · May 2, 2025

Everybody was kung fu fighting

Those cats were fast as lightning

In fact, it was a little bit frightening

But they fought with expert timing

– Carl Douglas

The United States of America ruined its future as an Asian power 143 years ago when it passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the first US law to prevent immigration of a specific nationality.

In the 19th century, China was turned upside down by internal chaos. The Opium Wars, the Taiping Rebellion, clan feuds, droughts and famines pushed waves of Chinese migrants out to all corners of the world – particularly Southeast Asia, Europe and America.

Starting with the California Gold Rush of 1848-1855, waves of Chinese migrants fanned out across the western United States working in mines, laundries, restaurants and on construction projects. Chinese coolies were instrumental in the arduous construction of the Central Pacific route of the first transcontinental railroad, cutting through the Sierra Nevada Mountains to connect Nevada and California.

In his 1920 book “The Rising Tide of Color: The Threat Against White World-Supremacy”, eugenicist and racial anthropologist Lothrop Stoddard of “The Great Gatsby” infamy wrote of Chinese labor:

At home, the average Chinese lives his whole life literally within a hand’s breadth of starvation. Accordingly, when removed to the easier environments of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him the working capacity which simply appalls his competitors.

F Scott Fitzgerald dismissed Stoddard by making him an obsession of the boorish Tom Buchanan (misnaming him “Goddard” to boot). On the issue of Chinese labor, however, Stoddard merely reflected the American opinion that prevailed in the 19th century and that ultimately resulted in the Chinese Exclusion Act.

By the 1870s, Chinese men accounted for a quarter of California’s workforce. White workers were hard pressed to match the industriousness of the Chinese, reflected in the fact that the Central Pacific Railroad paid Chinese workers a premium salary: $31 per week versus $30 per week for whites.

Resentments intensified after the Panic of 1873, resulting in increasing restrictions on Chinese immigration until the broad ban of the Chinese Exclusion Act was enacted in 1882.

A harrowing “driving out period” followed the immigration ban, with Chinese evicted from communities where they had long settled. The Rock Springs massacre of 1885 and the Hells Canyon Massacre of 1887 were especially gruesome episodes of anti-Chinese violence.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943, but by then, the damage had been done. Today, there are 5.5 million Americans who claim full or partial Chinese ancestry, a mere 1.6% of the population.

This compares with 38.6 million (11.3% of the population) claiming Irish ancestry, 49 million (14.4%) claiming German ancestry and 16.8 million (4.9%) claiming Italian ancestry. There are 3.6 million more Scandinavian Americans than there are Chinese Americans.

Nativists were dead set against nonwhite immigration. Cartoon image via National Public Radio.

There are 26 million Americans who claim full or partial Asian ancestry, 7.2% of the total population. If the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 had never been passed, there would certainly be far more.

At the time, China had a population of 400 million, Europe 330 million and the United States 54 million. In a counterfactual sans Exclusion Act history, it is not hard to imagine over 100 million Asian Americans today. Alcatraz Island could have been the West Coast’s Ellis Island, processing Asian immigrants well into the 20th century.

Of course, this alternate universe America would be very different and we could have much fun speculating on the endless counterfactual possibilities. Suffice it to say that a United States with over 100 million Asian Americans would forever cement the republic as not just a Pacific but an Asian power.

That, for better or for worse, is not the America we have today. The United States today may be a Pacific power, but it is certainly not Asian. America became a Pacific power after it, fearing being shut out of the opium trade by European powers, sent Commodore Perry and his black ships to force open Japan in 1852.

Ever since, the United States has been a military presence in Asia through subsequent kerfuffles like the Second Opium War, the Boxer Rebellion, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

As time goes on, it is becoming ever more apparent that the United States is in Asia, but it is not of Asia. Korea is divided. So is China. Vietnam, after much carnage, was abandoned. And Japan has been kneecapped into economic stagnation and bonsaied into cultural anomie.

And now, the United States has just picked an economic war with China, which it is highly likely to lose and lose spectacularly (see here). The danger of America being in Asia but not of Asia is that it is playing on alien terrain, subject to information asymmetries, and prone to bad judgment.

There are so few Chinese Americans that they essentially have no political power. Because of that, the expertise of the Chinese Americans who do exist is distrusted and dismissed as Washington takes its cues from grifters (see here) and China “experts” who “fell in love with Mandarin” at Princeton or the like.

In the counterfactual America of 100 million Asians, Chinese Americans would surely have amassed significant political power and Washington would be able to access real experts without political suspicion. America would trust Treasury Secretary Zhang to go up against China as much as it trusted Supreme Commander Eisenhower to take on Germany.

But alas, that is the counterfactual America. The factual America chose to fight China with the ignoramuses it trusts, not the experts it needs. This is what happens when America is in Asia but not of Asia. America started a fight as though it didn’t know China is more than twice its size (see here).

To be in Asia but not of Asia when China is the size it is and still growing means to not be in Asia for long. The US military presence in Asia is an alien distortion, imposing social, economic and civilizational costs on both sides of the Pacific.

The US is not particularly reliant on Asia economically (36% of imports and 24% of exports) and is minimally integrated culturally.

English is the lingua franca in Europe and far more Americans speak Spanish than all Asian languages combined. While English is commonly spoken in Asia, it is hardly universal – not even among the highly educated. Asia, as far as most Americans are concerned, is an exotic other and vice versa.

The costs of maintaining a forward US military presence in Asia are immense. Total spending on defense is likely over US$1 trillion (including intelligence agencies and DOE nuclear weapons, etc.), or approximately 3.4% of gross domestic product (GDP).

The tyranny of distance, on top of a massive industrial base, allows China to impose highly asymmetric costs on the US. Total spending on defense by China is likely around $300 billion, or about 1.6% of GDP.

Because GDP can be squirrely given how services are accounted for in China, a more revealing comparison may be with industrial output. China’s defense spending is around 4% of its industrial output versus about 25% for the US.

One of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed was that the US, given its technological superiority and the then USSR’s vast vulnerable landmass, was able to impose asymmetric costs on the Soviet defense budget – the Ronald Reagan strategy.

Analysts have estimated that the Soviet Union was spending 12-20% of its GDP on defense in the 1980s trying to keep up with Reagan’s Pentagon budget increases and whiz-bang Star Wars demonstrations. This time around, China is implementing the Reagan strategy with annual PLA budget increases and whiz-bang demonstrations of 6th-generation fighter planes (see here).

Can Joe Six Pack American be blamed for asking what it is all for when he is living paycheck to paycheck? America is not, after all, an Asian nation – it fatefully, for better or for worse, decided not to be 143 years ago with the Chinese Exclusion Act and confirmed that decision in WWII with Japanese American internment camps. America is not full of Zhou Six Packs with deep historical ties to Asia.

Proponents of the pivot to Asia and/or China containment policy offer up a confused litany of reasons for America’s military presence. The most visible spokesman for this position is Elbridge Colby, currently undersecretary of defense for policy at the Pentagon, who wrote the book “Strategy of Denial.”

The fear is that a hegemonic China in Asia would economically gate-keep the region from American commercial interests. Given President Donald Trump’s attempt to extort the world with his “Liberation Day” tariffs, we must concede that a hegemon may indeed behave poorly for no good reason at all.

The issue we have with Colby is once again the issue of America being in Asia but not of Asia. How good of a handle does Colby have on the costs that his strategy of denial requires? America currently suffers from a whole panoply of domestic ailments, from inadequate healthcare to lousy education to decrepit infrastructure to homelessness. Does Colby fully understand what he wants to commit America to?

Does Colby understand that China’s GDP is two to three times that of the US – something Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and team surely (dis)missed? Does Colby understand that there are 45 times as many highly capable (top 1.5%, US basis) math students in Chinese high schools as American high schools?

Does Colby understand that approximately 20-30% of Chinese high school students can score in the 99th percentile on the math section of the SAT? 99th percentile US math level is table stakes in China, nothing special, a mere B+ student in the Gaokao system.

Does Colby understand that China generates twice as much electricity, produces 13 times as much steel, 22 times as much cement, three times as many cars and has over 250 times the shipbuilding capacity as the US?

Colby’s family history perfectly illustrates being in Asia but not of Asia. He is a scion of the CIA/Carlyle Group/Yale University with a deep family history in Asia. The first Elbridge Colby (great-grandfather) was an officer in the US Army stationed in Tianjin.

Grandfather William Colby was director of the CIA and did god knows what in Asia during the Vietnam War. Father Jonathan Colby is an executive at Carlyle who spent much of his career in Japan.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

The scion himself is a product of international schools in Asia (but does not speak an Asian language). At one point, young Colby tweeted that he was “not an expert on Taiwanese society and politics”, an odd admission from someone whose life’s work is the prevention of China’s reunification with Taiwan.

This is all quite illustrative of America’s confused presence in Asia. In an interview, Colby used scare tactics, saying that an Asia dominated by China would impoverish America and China would then have the world’s largest corporations and highest-ranked universities.

Last year, the US retook Fortune’s Global 500 crown away from China with 139 companies on the list versus China’s 128. The two nations have been exchanging the top spot for the past few years.

This is a far cry from 2010, when the US had 139 companies on the list versus 46 from China. Similarly, China’s universities are rocketing up the league tables, capturing 16 of the top 20 positions on the Nature Index.

Image: Nature

While an Asia dominated by China, which then decided to gate-keep economic access, could indeed damage America, climbing the economic ladder is likely far more dependent on first-order principles like investing in education, infrastructure, public health, executing well-thought-out industrial policies, and stamping out graft and corruption.

America is falling behind not because China is modernizing its military, but precisely because America wasted trillions of dollars on unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now threatens to militarily challenge the biggest player that ever was.

Colby calls himself a realist, though it’s not clear that he knows exactly what he is. Just like America does not know what it is. America may want to be an Asian power, but that ship sailed in 1882. America is not Asian – it chose not to be on more than one occasion – and has demonstrated a limited capacity to understand any region outside its borders, even Canada.

To devise realist policies for Asian security requires expertise on the region’s society and politics. Otherwise, one is not weighing costs and benefits but merely pointing in ideological directions.

But nowadays that passes for “realist” thinking among America’s Asia “experts.” When all is said and done, America is in Asia because it finds itself in Asia. There is no reason: Like international school students who don’t learn the local language, they are there because that’s where they are. Not everything has a reason or lasts.

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

asiatimes.com · by Han Feizi · May 2, 2025

18. Strengthening Nuclear Deterrence in the Far East

Excerpts:

Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK), as key American allies, should strengthen their conventional military capabilities, both offensive and defensive, to reinforce regional deterrence. Two critical steps are needed. First, Japan and South Korea must expand their capabilities to neutralize North Korea’s missile launchers. Second, Japan’s defense architecture should be aligned with South Korea’s Three-Axis System to create an integrated deterrence framework.

...

By implementing these measures, North Korea would be left with only a limited number of launchers capable of delivering nuclear weapons. While it is possible that some missiles could still be launched from the remaining launchers and a few might evade American missile defenses, North Korea would have to consider allocating few nuclear warheads against Japan, South Korea, and the United States. This would be necessary both to achieve its long-term political objectives and to deter US-ROK combined forces and US Forces Japan (USFJ) from retaliating in the short term.

Moreover, North Korean leadership would face significant uncertainty about whether its remaining nuclear missiles could successfully penetrate American missile defenses. In essence, by increasing their conventional strike capabilities and aligning their military strategies, Japan and South Korea could ensure that a substantial number of North Korean launchers are neutralized. This would force Pyongyang to operate with significantly reduced military options, making its attempt to create nuclear decoupling less credible.

However, this strategy is only viable as long as North Korea’s nuclear arsenal remains limited. If Pyongyang dramatically expands its warhead stockpile and launch platforms, conventional deterrence alone will no longer be sufficient, and the risk of nuclear decoupling will escalate beyond control. The US, Japan, and South Korea must act decisively—before the balance of power shifts irreversibly in North Korea’s favor. Time is running out.

Strengthening Nuclear Deterrence in the Far East — Global Security Review

globalsecurityreview.com · by Ju Hyung Kim · May 2, 2025

North Korea’s rapid advancements in nuclear miniaturization, missile technology, and multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) capabilities are accelerating the risk of nuclear decoupling among the US, Japan, and South Korea—undermining the credibility of deterrence in the region. Given this grave security challenge, what realistic measures can be taken to prevent nuclear decoupling?

Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK), as key American allies, should strengthen their conventional military capabilities, both offensive and defensive, to reinforce regional deterrence. Two critical steps are needed. First, Japan and South Korea must expand their capabilities to neutralize North Korea’s missile launchers. Second, Japan’s defense architecture should be aligned with South Korea’s Three-Axis System to create an integrated deterrence framework.

So far, to address concerns over potential nuclear decoupling, the US, Japan, and South Korea have explored multiple options. In addition to Washington’s repeated assurances that its nuclear extended deterrence remains intact, discussions have included modernizing American nuclear weapons, expanding nuclear-sharing agreements, redeploying tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea, and even the possibility of South Korea developing its own nuclear arsenal.

However, South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons remains highly improbable due to its significant political costs. From the 1960s to the 1980s, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member-states feared the US might hesitate to retaliate with nuclear weapons if the Soviet Union launched a nuclear strike on Europe. While NATO pursued multiple strategies—most notably the dual-key system and the deployment of Pershing II missiles—these measures never fully resolved nuclear decoupling concerns.

Ultimately, NATO never confronted the full extent of this dilemma as the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Since the issue lies not in the US’s ability to retaliate but in its willingness to do so under specific conditions, the most practical approach is to adopt deterrence measures that North Korea perceives as credible.

First, Japan and South Korea should prioritize expanding their capabilities to neutralize North Korea’s nuclear missile launchers. A key advantage for the US, Japan, and South Korea—compared to NATO during the Cold War—is that North Korea is estimated to have around 50 nuclear warheads, far fewer than the tens of thousands in the Soviet arsenal.

In this context, Japan’s planned acquisition of enemy base strike capabilities should focus not only on expanding the number of available strike assets but also on improving their precision and destructive power to ensure maximum effectiveness against North Korean launch sites. At the same time, South Korea’s kill chain should further enhance its deep-strike capabilities by increasing assets like the Hyunmoo-4 missile, which is designed to penetrate deeply buried facilities.

Additionally, South Korea’s Drone Operations Command, established in 2023, should undergo a major expansion in drone assets capable of effectively detecting, tracking, and striking North Korean missile launchers. By integrating high-precision missiles and unmanned systems, both Japan and South Korea can significantly reduce North Korea’s ability to deliver nuclear strikes, thereby reinforcing deterrence.

Second, as Japan and South Korea expand their strike capabilities, Japan’s defense architecture should be aligned with South Korea’s Three-Axis System. This integration would allow both countries to allocate their finite military assets more effectively when targeting North Korea’s nuclear-related ground units. For example, given the geographic distance, Japan could focus on striking fixed targets such as command centers and underground missile storage sites while South Korea concentrates on eliminating mobile launchers that require rapid response and precision strikes.

Additionally, harmonizing Japan and South Korea’s missile defense structures would improve the likelihood of intercepting North Korean missiles. While Japan has developed its missile defense in close coordination with the United States, South Korea has opted to develop its own independent missile defense system, instead of fully integrating into the American-led ballistic missile defense framework.

However, aligning the two countries’ missile defense systems would significantly enhance regional interception capabilities. A fully integrated defense network would not only establish a more layered interception system against incoming North Korean missiles but also enable earlier response times—as Japan and South Korea deepen their real-time missile-tracking cooperation—South Korea’s response times could improve further. By improving both offensive and defensive coordination, Japan and South Korea can maximize deterrence and reduce North Korea’s nuclear strike effectiveness.

By implementing these measures, North Korea would be left with only a limited number of launchers capable of delivering nuclear weapons. While it is possible that some missiles could still be launched from the remaining launchers and a few might evade American missile defenses, North Korea would have to consider allocating few nuclear warheads against Japan, South Korea, and the United States. This would be necessary both to achieve its long-term political objectives and to deter US-ROK combined forces and US Forces Japan (USFJ) from retaliating in the short term.

Moreover, North Korean leadership would face significant uncertainty about whether its remaining nuclear missiles could successfully penetrate American missile defenses. In essence, by increasing their conventional strike capabilities and aligning their military strategies, Japan and South Korea could ensure that a substantial number of North Korean launchers are neutralized. This would force Pyongyang to operate with significantly reduced military options, making its attempt to create nuclear decoupling less credible.

However, this strategy is only viable as long as North Korea’s nuclear arsenal remains limited. If Pyongyang dramatically expands its warhead stockpile and launch platforms, conventional deterrence alone will no longer be sufficient, and the risk of nuclear decoupling will escalate beyond control. The US, Japan, and South Korea must act decisively—before the balance of power shifts irreversibly in North Korea’s favor. Time is running out.

Dr. Ju Hyung Kim, CEO of the Security Management Institute, a defense think tank affiliated with the South Korean National Assembly, is currently adapting his doctoral dissertation, “Japan’s Security Contribution to South Korea, 1950 to 2023,” into a book.

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

If you do not read anything else in the 2017 National Security Strategy read this on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."

Access NSS HERE

Company Name | Website