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.
Director of Chatham House UK in the World Programme gives evidence at Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee
English Summary
Olivia O'Sullivan, Director of Chatham House's UK in the World Programme, testified before the UK Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee on the Integrated Security Fund and its role in addressing high-priority security threats. She highlighted the UK's shifting strategic security landscape driven by a massive contraction in global aid spending, forcing difficult trade-offs between immediate defence priorities, conflict prevention, and long-term complex risks. O'Sullivan warned that conflict-affected states risk being neglected under the new international aid environment and urged the government to ensure the centrally situated Integrated Security Fund is preserved through the FCDO restructure to enable long-term strategic investment. The testimony underscores the need for the UK to maintain institutional capacity for anticipating emerging threats even as budgetary pressures mount.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所「英國與世界計畫」主任奧利維亞·奧沙利文（Olivia O'Sullivan）出席英國國會外交事務委員會，就「整合安全基金」及其在應對高優先安全威脅中的角色作證。她指出，全球援助支出大幅縮減正驅動英國戰略安全格局的轉變，迫使政府在即時國防優先事項、衝突預防與長期複雜風險之間做出艱難取捨。奧沙利文警告，在新的國際援助環境下，受衝突影響的國家面臨被忽視的風險，並敦促政府確保在外交、國協及發展事務部（FCDO）重組過程中，保留居於核心地位的整合安全基金，以實現長期戰略投資。此證詞凸顯英國在預算壓力日增之際，仍須維持預判新興威脅的制度能力。
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.