Opinion | Trump Lacks Knowledge on Managing an Empire
Trump's campaign against the bureaucracy directly contradicts his ambitions for wielding power internationally, even if he is unaware of this conflict.
TroibNews 
America’s 41st president, George H. W. Bush, disliked the term "empire," yet he adeptly managed one during his presidency, which coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall, marking the United States' emergence as a unipolar power. His skillful foreign policy established him as one of the most effective one-term presidents in American history. Bush demonstrated a clear understanding of how to project and manage American power. He maintained diplomatic relations with China after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, contrary to the demands of many in the Washington policy and intellectual circles. Additionally, he opted against a victory tour through Central and Eastern Europe, choosing not to humiliate the Soviets, which could have provoked military action to defend the Warsaw Pact. After Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi occupation in 1991, he also refrained from advancing on Baghdad, concerned about the potential fallout that might arise from dismantling the Iraqi state.
Bush often remarked that “public service is a noble calling,” a belief that reflected his understanding of American imperialism. As an aristocrat in the White House, he was remarkably considerate not just of his staff but also of the broader federal bureaucracy. His appreciation for government service stemmed from the acknowledgment that his achievements were supported by a dedicated team of diplomats, area specialists, and civil servants who meticulously prepared the groundwork for significant decisions during his presidency.
A World War II hero as a Navy pilot, Bush was a staunch believer in America's mission abroad. This idealism positioned him as a reluctant yet effective imperialist, recognizing that it was a capable bureaucracy that enabled him to wield world power. This understanding was not unique to Bush; Henry Kissinger highlighted that, despite differences with the State Department’s Arab experts, he could not have accomplished his diplomatic goals in the Middle East without their insights.
In contrast, the Trump administration has undertaken measures that not only aim to diminish the bureaucracy within these institutions but also to undermine their reputation.
President Donald Trump might see himself as an imperialist, mercantilist, or perhaps an extraordinary deal-maker. Regardless, his administration seems intent on exercising American power abroad, from Greenland to Gaza. However, no modern empire can effectively project power globally without a competent and motivated bureaucracy. As political scientist Samuel P. Huntington observed, the complexity of a society necessitates strong institutions for its management, a reality particularly pertinent to an empire like the United States, which has functioned as such since 1945. While many Americans may share Bush's discomfort with the term "empire," the nation's achievements, challenges, and numerous missteps echo the experiences of various historical empires. The Trump administration's aggressive stance against its own perceived "deep state" appears to be a campaign against the institutions crucial for organizing society and safeguarding it against international threats.
American power abroad is not solely a result of presidential choices; it emerges from robust institutions, especially the State Department and the Defense Department. American diplomats face crises in countless countries daily, dealing with both large and small, complex states like Pakistan, Nigeria, and Colombia. The finest linguists and political secretaries are essential in embassies overseas to navigate these challenges. By weakening the bureaucratic infrastructure and simultaneously discouraging young people from pursuing public service, the administration threatens the very foundation of American global influence. While the impacts may not be immediately visible, they are both real and insidious.
The Trump administration, along with supportive conservative media, has derided those who serve in these institutions as part of the "deep state." Having personally known many individuals in the national security bureaucracy throughout my career, I hold a profound respect for their roles. These professionals play a vital part in managing a complex world, a reality that often goes unappreciated. My experiences at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank aimed at preparing technocrats for government roles, alongside research on Middle East and China area specialists and the operations of USAID during the Cold War, have highlighted the caliber of individuals within this bureaucratic framework. I do not recognize the inefficiency and corruption that Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk attribute to government employees.
The colleagues I've worked with, who ascended to roles such as deputy assistant secretaries and ambassadors, were primarily politically moderate centrists with a balanced emotional disposition, driven by a commitment to making a meaningful impact in governance rather than financial gain. Their aspirations were largely shaped by the architects of the postwar order, such as General George C. Marshall, who aimed to create a stable international environment.
These men and women are critical in providing informed options for American decision-makers and executing policies worldwide. While they may not always be bold thinkers, boldness is not typically part of their responsibilities. It is gained through experience; recklessness arises otherwise. Robert M. Gates, widely regarded as one of the finest secretaries of defense in the post-Cold War era, spent decades navigating the national security bureaucracy as a so-called "deep-stater." I am concerned that individuals appointed by Trump to lead the Defense Department and other key bureaucracies may lack the necessary experience to effectively wield power within their institutions and, by extension, globally.
In essence, Trump's desire to exert control worldwide conflicts with the actions his administration has taken against the bureaucratic framework essential to achieving those aims.
Consider, for instance, the area specialists and experts on the Arab world and China, who have been among the most skilled bureaucrats I've encountered. Their insights serve as early warning systems: Arabists advised against the 2003 Iraq War, while China experts cautioned about geopolitical tensions surrounding Taiwan. It is imperative to have the best individuals in these roles. Successful empires foster cosmopolitanism, encompassing a deep understanding of languages and cultures crucial for maintaining diplomatic and security relations. Yet, the Trump administration has implicitly discouraged bright, linguistically skilled young individuals from pursuing government careers. While restructuring bureaucracies for efficiency is justified, creating a hostile work environment for those who remain by imposing burdensome regulations significantly undermines motivation, leading them to seek opportunities elsewhere.
A clear illustration of how the Trump administration’s actions against the bureaucracy jeopardize American power is its assault on USAID. For decades, USAID has operated much more than mere humanitarian programs; its projects, often executed in partnership with non-governmental organizations, forge essential connections that diplomats and military personnel rely on, particularly during crises when local contacts are invaluable. An empire is built not just on military might or monetary influence but also on nurturing relationships throughout the globe via initiatives including humanitarian aid. While Trump has rightfully pointed out the challenge posed by Chinese global influence, he has seemingly overlooked that China expands its reach significantly through development projects. By dismantling American humanitarian efforts in regions like Africa and South America, the policy creates a vacuum that China is poised to fill with its initiatives. It also hampers intelligence operations, as USAID staff have established networks in challenging regions.
The American-led postwar order has depended on three critical non-economic pillars: NATO, USAID, and various alliances in the Pacific. The Trump administration has expressed disdain for the first, is attempting to undermine the second, and is creating uncertainty around the third. America’s Pacific allies have China as their primary trading partner; a tariff conflict could escalate into actual war. We should not wish for our allies to feel compelled to choose between the United States and China. Without careful navigation, Trump's self-anointed "golden age" could devolve into a period of decline.
The British Empire endured, in part, due to the skill of its diplomats and intelligence operatives. From my reporting in Africa and elsewhere during the late 20th century, I witnessed how British influence persisted long after the empire's decline, thanks to the caliber of individuals staffing its embassies who could always be relied upon for thorough briefings. Nothing signifies power like the quality of personnel in vital institutions at home and in diplomatic missions worldwide.
Successful world powers and empires have thrived not merely through raw power but through various persuasive tactics; the subtler the strategy, the longer the power’s longevity. Such persuasion relies on a capable and effective bureaucracy—precisely what Trump seeks to dismantle. Our bureaucratic elite possesses a unique perspective, often merging American interests with the promotion of human rights and democracy—a perspective that might seem naive yet is genuinely held. These bureaucrats are aware that without a sense of mission, America's foreign policy may devolve into a cold, ruthless realpolitik, akin to that of China. No powerful nation has sustained itself long without a clear purpose, which is why Trump’s approach to the bureaucracy runs counter to his ambitions abroad, regardless of his awareness.
Public service has been the fundamental element maintaining the United States’ status in the world for decades. If it is neglected and stripped of its nobility, the very essence of the American Experience could falter. For millennia, empires have governed and organized human society. Thus far, the American experience has generally been positive. Preserving this requires ongoing effort—something that the 41st president understood instinctively.
Mark B Thomas contributed to this report for TROIB News
Bush often remarked that “public service is a noble calling,” a belief that reflected his understanding of American imperialism. As an aristocrat in the White House, he was remarkably considerate not just of his staff but also of the broader federal bureaucracy. His appreciation for government service stemmed from the acknowledgment that his achievements were supported by a dedicated team of diplomats, area specialists, and civil servants who meticulously prepared the groundwork for significant decisions during his presidency.
A World War II hero as a Navy pilot, Bush was a staunch believer in America's mission abroad. This idealism positioned him as a reluctant yet effective imperialist, recognizing that it was a capable bureaucracy that enabled him to wield world power. This understanding was not unique to Bush; Henry Kissinger highlighted that, despite differences with the State Department’s Arab experts, he could not have accomplished his diplomatic goals in the Middle East without their insights.
In contrast, the Trump administration has undertaken measures that not only aim to diminish the bureaucracy within these institutions but also to undermine their reputation.
President Donald Trump might see himself as an imperialist, mercantilist, or perhaps an extraordinary deal-maker. Regardless, his administration seems intent on exercising American power abroad, from Greenland to Gaza. However, no modern empire can effectively project power globally without a competent and motivated bureaucracy. As political scientist Samuel P. Huntington observed, the complexity of a society necessitates strong institutions for its management, a reality particularly pertinent to an empire like the United States, which has functioned as such since 1945. While many Americans may share Bush's discomfort with the term "empire," the nation's achievements, challenges, and numerous missteps echo the experiences of various historical empires. The Trump administration's aggressive stance against its own perceived "deep state" appears to be a campaign against the institutions crucial for organizing society and safeguarding it against international threats.
American power abroad is not solely a result of presidential choices; it emerges from robust institutions, especially the State Department and the Defense Department. American diplomats face crises in countless countries daily, dealing with both large and small, complex states like Pakistan, Nigeria, and Colombia. The finest linguists and political secretaries are essential in embassies overseas to navigate these challenges. By weakening the bureaucratic infrastructure and simultaneously discouraging young people from pursuing public service, the administration threatens the very foundation of American global influence. While the impacts may not be immediately visible, they are both real and insidious.
The Trump administration, along with supportive conservative media, has derided those who serve in these institutions as part of the "deep state." Having personally known many individuals in the national security bureaucracy throughout my career, I hold a profound respect for their roles. These professionals play a vital part in managing a complex world, a reality that often goes unappreciated. My experiences at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank aimed at preparing technocrats for government roles, alongside research on Middle East and China area specialists and the operations of USAID during the Cold War, have highlighted the caliber of individuals within this bureaucratic framework. I do not recognize the inefficiency and corruption that Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk attribute to government employees.
The colleagues I've worked with, who ascended to roles such as deputy assistant secretaries and ambassadors, were primarily politically moderate centrists with a balanced emotional disposition, driven by a commitment to making a meaningful impact in governance rather than financial gain. Their aspirations were largely shaped by the architects of the postwar order, such as General George C. Marshall, who aimed to create a stable international environment.
These men and women are critical in providing informed options for American decision-makers and executing policies worldwide. While they may not always be bold thinkers, boldness is not typically part of their responsibilities. It is gained through experience; recklessness arises otherwise. Robert M. Gates, widely regarded as one of the finest secretaries of defense in the post-Cold War era, spent decades navigating the national security bureaucracy as a so-called "deep-stater." I am concerned that individuals appointed by Trump to lead the Defense Department and other key bureaucracies may lack the necessary experience to effectively wield power within their institutions and, by extension, globally.
In essence, Trump's desire to exert control worldwide conflicts with the actions his administration has taken against the bureaucratic framework essential to achieving those aims.
Consider, for instance, the area specialists and experts on the Arab world and China, who have been among the most skilled bureaucrats I've encountered. Their insights serve as early warning systems: Arabists advised against the 2003 Iraq War, while China experts cautioned about geopolitical tensions surrounding Taiwan. It is imperative to have the best individuals in these roles. Successful empires foster cosmopolitanism, encompassing a deep understanding of languages and cultures crucial for maintaining diplomatic and security relations. Yet, the Trump administration has implicitly discouraged bright, linguistically skilled young individuals from pursuing government careers. While restructuring bureaucracies for efficiency is justified, creating a hostile work environment for those who remain by imposing burdensome regulations significantly undermines motivation, leading them to seek opportunities elsewhere.
A clear illustration of how the Trump administration’s actions against the bureaucracy jeopardize American power is its assault on USAID. For decades, USAID has operated much more than mere humanitarian programs; its projects, often executed in partnership with non-governmental organizations, forge essential connections that diplomats and military personnel rely on, particularly during crises when local contacts are invaluable. An empire is built not just on military might or monetary influence but also on nurturing relationships throughout the globe via initiatives including humanitarian aid. While Trump has rightfully pointed out the challenge posed by Chinese global influence, he has seemingly overlooked that China expands its reach significantly through development projects. By dismantling American humanitarian efforts in regions like Africa and South America, the policy creates a vacuum that China is poised to fill with its initiatives. It also hampers intelligence operations, as USAID staff have established networks in challenging regions.
The American-led postwar order has depended on three critical non-economic pillars: NATO, USAID, and various alliances in the Pacific. The Trump administration has expressed disdain for the first, is attempting to undermine the second, and is creating uncertainty around the third. America’s Pacific allies have China as their primary trading partner; a tariff conflict could escalate into actual war. We should not wish for our allies to feel compelled to choose between the United States and China. Without careful navigation, Trump's self-anointed "golden age" could devolve into a period of decline.
The British Empire endured, in part, due to the skill of its diplomats and intelligence operatives. From my reporting in Africa and elsewhere during the late 20th century, I witnessed how British influence persisted long after the empire's decline, thanks to the caliber of individuals staffing its embassies who could always be relied upon for thorough briefings. Nothing signifies power like the quality of personnel in vital institutions at home and in diplomatic missions worldwide.
Successful world powers and empires have thrived not merely through raw power but through various persuasive tactics; the subtler the strategy, the longer the power’s longevity. Such persuasion relies on a capable and effective bureaucracy—precisely what Trump seeks to dismantle. Our bureaucratic elite possesses a unique perspective, often merging American interests with the promotion of human rights and democracy—a perspective that might seem naive yet is genuinely held. These bureaucrats are aware that without a sense of mission, America's foreign policy may devolve into a cold, ruthless realpolitik, akin to that of China. No powerful nation has sustained itself long without a clear purpose, which is why Trump’s approach to the bureaucracy runs counter to his ambitions abroad, regardless of his awareness.
Public service has been the fundamental element maintaining the United States’ status in the world for decades. If it is neglected and stripped of its nobility, the very essence of the American Experience could falter. For millennia, empires have governed and organized human society. Thus far, the American experience has generally been positive. Preserving this requires ongoing effort—something that the 41st president understood instinctively.
Mark B Thomas contributed to this report for TROIB News
