The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
US and North America Programme
English Summary
Chatham House’s US and North America Programme argues that understanding policy shifts in Washington and Ottawa is essential to navigating wider global realignment. Its reasoning is based on a mix of policy-focused research, expert analysis, and cross-sector convenings that track how North American decisions shape geopolitical, security, and economic outcomes. The programme emphasizes durable structural trends rather than only short-term political cycles, including US-China strategy, trade-policy renegotiation, and evolving alliance structures. For policymakers and strategists in the UK, Europe, and other middle powers, the implication is to prepare for sustained changes in US external behavior through diversified partnerships, adaptive economic strategy, and long-horizon security planning beyond 2028.
中文摘要
英國皇家國際事務研究所（Chatham House）的美國與北美計畫主張，要掌握全球更廣泛的重組態勢，關鍵在於理解華盛頓與渥太華的政策轉向。其論證基礎來自以政策為導向的研究、專家分析，以及跨部門對話與會議，持續追蹤北美決策如何形塑地緣政治、安全與經濟結果。該計畫強調的是可持續的結構性趨勢，而非僅聚焦短期政治週期；相關議題包括美中戰略、貿易政策再談判，以及同盟結構的演變。對英國、歐洲及其他中等強權的政策制定者與戰略規劃者而言，其意涵在於：應透過夥伴關係多元化、具調適性的經濟策略，以及超越 2028 年的長期安全規劃，為美國對外行為的持續變化預作準備。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
China's economic strategy is characterized by a persistent 'economics of denial,' prioritizing massive state-directed investment in advanced technology over addressing weak domestic consumption. This approach is rooted in a flawed belief that controlling physical capital will automatically generate productivity and wage growth, ignoring the structural imbalance where domestic demand consistently falls short of supply. This overinvestment and underconsumption model is unsustainable. Consequently, Beijing's policies will continue to generate global deflationary pressures and escalating trade friction, necessitating a fundamental pivot toward consumption-led growth for long-term stability.
-
3.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
4.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.
-
5.
The article analyzes the deep ideological split within the Democratic Party regarding the future of U.S. foreign policy, pitting centrists against progressives. Centrists generally advocate for restoring a reformed U.S.-led international order and strengthening alliances, while progressives argue for a multipolar world that prioritizes transnational threats like climate change and AI over geopolitical competition. This division is most pronounced in the Middle East, where centrists push for greater pressure on Israel and a regional settlement, a shift largely welcomed by progressives. The core finding is that these internal debates threaten to consume a future administration with indecision, making it difficult for the U.S. to project a coherent and unified global strategy.