Day: October 9, 2026

Abstract: Trump has repeatedly utilized international forums, such as the UN, as stages for provocation rather than diplomacy. This year’s speech, his first since the U.S. went to war with Iran, continued a pattern of escalation, from telling European leaders their countries were “going to hell” in 2025 to threatening to “annihilate” Iran in 2026. World leaders have responded by refusing to cooperate and reducing reliance on the United States, representing a loss of trust in American leadership. A president who has lost the faith of his allies cannot build the coalitions that successful foreign policy depends on. 

While President Trump’s incendiary rhetoric feels unsettlingly common in contemporary politics, his recent UN address was a stark reminder of what that discourse has cost in diplomacy. For the fifth time, Trump stood before the General Assembly, this time with the United States seven months into a war with Iran.¹ He told the world he must either make a deal or “annihilate the Islamic Republic.”² However, in the same speech, he called on “all nations to join us” and promised that “if we stand united,” Iran’s threat would soon be gone.³ How can Trump expect a coalition of nations while pleading for their help and provoking them in the same breath?

If Trump wants to make serious strides in diplomacy with Iran, he must first change his approach. International relations are contingent on leverage, and Trump’s goal of the “complete economic isolation of Iran” is only plausible if allies agree to enforce it.⁴ Recent events suggest that international allies are unlikely to support the United States and are losing faith in hegemonic dependence, which refers to the reliance of smaller nations on a dominant power for security, economic stability, and political influence. As this dependence diminishes, allies may seek independent paths or reliance on a new hegemon.  Early signs of this shift have been visible in recent geopolitical developments in Iran. For example, when Trump asked NATO members to help secure the Strait of Hormuz in March, most declined, and EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, explained that Europe’s main concern about the war was that “[they] were not consulted” before the war began.⁵ Spain and Italy went further than the EU, refusing additional assistance and restricting the United States access to airspace tied to the conflict.⁶ The self-inflicted rift between the US and its allies was on full display one day after Trump’s address, when Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez used the same UN stage to declare Spain’s opposition to the war.⁷ This situation can be further understood through Robert Putnam’s theory of two-level games. According to Putnam, leaders must negotiate abroad while remaining accountable to their domestic constituencies.⁸ In this context, Trump’s provocative rhetoric has made it politically risky for allied nations to align with Washington, complicating diplomatic relations.⁹

Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric has not only strained global relations, but it has significantly impacted America’s relationships with its neighboring countries as well. In Canada, the share of people who describe the U.S. as a “reliable partner” fell from 83 percent in 2022 to just 35 percent in 2026.¹⁰ That distrust stems from Trump’s repeated talk of absorbing Canada as the “51st state,” making cooperation with Washington a liability.¹¹ Allied nation leaders are quietly following their voters and reducing their reliance on the United States. The United Kingdom and Canada, two of America’s closest intelligence partners, have reportedly limited the information they share over concerns about the legality of U.S. strikes abroad,¹² and Canada became the first non-European country to join the EU’s defense-loan program.¹³ Every partner that steps back leaves Trump with less leverage over Iran and only continues to prolong this seeming war of attrition. 

Trump closed his address by promising the General Assembly that “together, through bold action, we will make this world far safer.”¹⁴ It is a goal his allies definitely share, but unity cannot be demanded from a place of hypocrisy, where the United States infuriates other nations in the hope of peace. Until Trump trades provocation for diplomacy, the coalition he needs to end the war with Iran will remain out of reach. The consequences of this diplomatic strategy are directly affecting Americans, who have paid, and will continue to pay, for it at home. Gas prices are about $1.50 higher than before the conflict began, with this trend likely to escalate further.¹⁵ As the cost of living continues to rise on the back of military enterprise, Americans can only hope that decorum re-enters the diplomatic sphere.

1. PolitiFact Staff, “Live Fact-Check: President Donald Trump Speaks to UN General Assembly in New York,” PolitiFact, September 22, 2026, https://politifact.com/article/2026/sep/22/trump-un-speech-live-fact-check/.
   ↩︎
2. Donald J. Trump, “Address to the General Debate of the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly” (speech, New York, September 22, 2026), United Nations, https://gadebate.un.org/en/81/united-states-america. 
   ↩︎
3. Donald J. Trump, “Address to the General Debate of the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly” (speech, New York, September 22, 2026), United Nations, https://gadebate.un.org/en/81/united-states-america. 
   ↩︎
4. Donald J. Trump, “Address to the General Debate of the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly” (speech, New York, September 22, 2026), United Nations, https://gadebate.un.org/en/81/united-states-america. 
   ↩︎
5. Franco Ordoñez, “Trump Lashes Out at NATO After Countries Decline to Help in Iran,” NPR, March 17, 2026, https://www.npr.org/2026/03/17/nx-s1-5750596/trump-lashes-out-at-nato-after-countries-decline-to-help-in-iran.
   ↩︎
6. Suman Naishadham, “Spain Closes Off Its Airspace to US Planes Involved in the Iran War,” AP News, March 30, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/trump-spain-united-states-iran-war-05e23ef4e0bda9cb226a16b10cd9437c.
   ↩︎
7. Pedro Sánchez, “Address by the President of the Government of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, to the United Nations General Assembly” (speech, New York, September 23, 2026), La Moncloa, https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/presidente/intervenciones/Paginas/2026/20260923-un-general-assembly-speech.aspx. ↩︎
8. Robert D. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization 42, no. 3 (1988): 427–60.
   ↩︎
9. Olivier Knox, “European Allies Tell Trump ‘No’ to Iran War: Why It Matters,” U.S. News & World Report, April 1, 2026, https://www.usnews.com/news/u-s-news-decision-points/articles/2026-04-01/european-allies-tell-trump-no-to-iran-war-why-it-matters.
   ↩︎
10. Luke Fountain,”Trump Faces Xi as Strains with Allies Complicate U.S. Pressure on China,” CNBC, September 23, 2026, https://cnbc.com/2026/09/23/trump-xi-china-summit-allies.html.
    ↩︎
11. Robert D. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization 42, no. 3 (1988): 427–60.
    ↩︎
12. Tressa Guenov, “By Alienating Its Intelligence Partners, the US Risks Losing More Than Trust,” Atlantic Council, March 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/by-alienating-its-intelligence-partners-the-us-risks-losing-more-than-trust/. 
    ↩︎
13. Lionel Laurent, “Canada and Europe Are Building a Hedge Against America,” Bloomberg Opinion, September 11, 2026, https://bworldonline.com/bloomberg/2026/09/11/776027/canada-and-europe-are-building-a-hedge-against-america/.
    ↩︎
14. Donald J. Trump, “Address to the General Debate of the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly” (speech, New York, September 22, 2026), United Nations, https://gadebate.un.org/en/81/united-states-america.
    ↩︎
15. Angi Gonzalez, “As U.S.-Iran War Hits 7-Month Mark, Rising Gas and Airfare Costs Squeeze Americans’ Wallets,” Spectrum News, September 28, 2026, https://spectrumlocalnews.com/us/snplus/international/2026/09/28/u-s–iran-war-7-months-gas-airfare-costs.
    ↩︎

Abstract: America’s two-party, plurality system encourages strategic voting by forcing voters to weigh electability against political preference. Germany’s multiparty, proportional system shifts more of that compromise to post-election coalition building, allowing votes to more directly reflect what voters actually want.

In 1992, nearly twenty million Americans voted for independent candidate Ross Perot; he won zero electoral votes.¹ Eight years later, roughly 97,000 Floridians backed the Green Party’s Ralph Nader, while George W. Bush carried the state, and the presidency, over Al Gore by just 537 votes.²

These elections and many others taught voters that a ballot cast outside of the two major parties can fail to translate into representation or, worse, help elect the candidate they least like. Therefore, many Americans vote strategically, backing parties based on the probability of victory rather than policy alignment. Political scientists since Maurice Duverger have recognized this behavior as largely systematic under plurality electoral rules, which are electoral systems in which the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in a given district wins the seat.³ But why might behaviors be different in a proportional system, where seat distribution reflects vote proportion?

The reason is not that voters in proportional democracies do not prioritize representation with their vote. Instead, the difference is that they can vote for a party without concern over falling within a majority. Under America’s two-party system, voters often compromise before casting their ballots. A voter who prefers a third-party candidate must consider whether that candidate can actually win and, if not, whether supporting them risks helping elect a less-preferred alternative. Additionally, because each of the two dominant parties group together a comprehensive set of policy positions before the election, voters can easily align within one of the two stronger options.

Proportional electoral systems, such as those used in multiparty democracies, shift much of that grouping to after the election. Germany provides a useful example. Its Bundestag is elected primarily through proportional representation, where ballots require two votes: first, specifically for member selection, and second, for party distribution.⁴ Each party’s share of the decisive “second vote” determines its relative strength within parliament.⁵ Instead of requiring every political interest to fit within one of two parties before an election, this system allows several parties to gain meaningful representation. 

Importantly, this system does not eliminate strategic voting entirely. Germany generally requires a party to receive at least 5% of second votes to participate in proportional seat allocation, giving voters who prefer parties near that threshold reason to think strategically.⁶ However, that pressure is different from a system in which only one candidate can win a state or a district.

Consider Germany’s Greens. In the 2021 federal election, the party received 14.7% of second votes.⁷ Those votes did not have to produce an outright Green victory to matter. The Greens gained representation in the Bundestag and ultimately joined SPD and FDP in forming the governing coalition.⁸ In other words, voters could support a smaller party, and the process of combining competing parties into a governing program happened afterward.

Every democracy eventually has to turn millions of different preferences into one government. By waiting to group policy positions until after the election process, proportional systems give voters a better chance to express what they actually want.

1. “1992 Electoral College Results,” U.S. Electoral College, National Archives and Records Administration, accessed October 1, 2026, https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/1992.
   ↩︎
2. Federal Election Commission, “2000 Presidential General Election Results,” in Federal Elections 2000, accessed October 1, 2026, https://www.fec.gov/documents/1732/FederalElections2000_PresidentialGeneralElectionResultsbyState.pdf.
   ↩︎
3. André Blais and R. K. Carty, “The Psychological Impact of Electoral Laws: Measuring Duverger’s Elusive Factor,” British Journal of Political Science 21, no. 1 (1991): 92.
   ↩︎
4. “Each Voter Has Two Votes in the 2021 Bundestag Election,” The Federal Returning Officer, September 14, 2021, https://www.bundeswahlleiterin.de/en/info/presse/mitteilungen/bundestagswahl-2021/37_21_zwei-stimmen.html.
   ↩︎
5. “Each Voter Has Two Votes in the 2021 Bundestag Election,” The Federal Returning Officer, September 14, 2021, https://www.bundeswahlleiterin.de/en/info/presse/mitteilungen/bundestagswahl-2021/37_21_zwei-stimmen.html.
   ↩︎
6. “Restrictive Clause,” The Federal Returning Officer, accessed October 1, 2026, https://www.bundeswahlleiterin.de/en/service/glossar/s/sperrklausel.html.
   ↩︎
7. “Results Germany: Bundestag Election 2021,” The Federal Returning Officer, accessed October 1, 2026, https://www.bundeswahlleiterin.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2021/ergebnisse/bund-99.html.
   ↩︎
8. Nigel Walker and Eleanor Gadd, “Germany: 2021 Election and a New Coalition Government,” House of Commons Library, January 5, 2022, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9324/.
   ↩︎

Through policies and military operations across Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland, and the broader Americas, the second Trump administration has explicitly revived the Monroe Doctrine as a guiding principle of American foreign policy.

In December 1823, President James Monroe addressed Congress with a message outlining the future of American foreign policy and military grand strategy, a declaration that became known as the Monroe Doctrine. Under the Doctrine, the United States asserted that the Western Hemisphere was naturally within its sphere of influence, distinct from European powers.¹ Although the Doctrine originally emerged as a reaction to the War of 1812, its principles have reemerged two centuries later under President Donald Trump’s second administration. The United States has once again staked its claim over the Western Hemisphere, seeking military access, strategic infrastructure, and denying rivals the ability to jeopardize American hegemony, and it is doing so with decisive military force.

On January 23, 2026, the Department of War released its annual National Defense Strategy, which outlines the United States military’s top priorities. Most notably, in the first ‘Line of Effort’ subsection, this year’s report, in contrast with the 2025 counterpart, explicitly mentions Greenland and the Panama Canal as strategically significant: “We will actively and fearlessly defend America’s interests throughout the Western Hemisphere. We will guarantee U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain, especially the Panama Canal, Gulf of America, and Greenland.”² While the 2025 National Defense Strategy was not as explicit in its nomenclature, both documents included the same striking statement: “This is the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.”³

The second Trump Administration marks a significant pivot in United States foreign policy, with a new focus on restoring American primacy in the Western Hemisphere. On January 3, 2026, the United States completed ‘Operation Absolute Resolve,’ a military operation resulting in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.⁴ The operation represented more than a confrontation with the Venezuelan government; it demonstrated the current administration’s willingness to use military strength to advance its interests in the region. 

Furthermore, throughout ‘Operation Southern Spear,’ initiated in 2025 and still ongoing, United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) conducted multiple strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats in international waters, justifying the strikes action by declaring individuals aboard these vessels “narco-terrorists.”⁵ In a press conference following one such strike, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth referred to these targeted boat crews as the “Al-Qaeda” of the Western Hemisphere.⁶ It should be noted that these offensive operations did raise domestic concerns surrounding American due process and the legality of lethal action in international waters. As Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) put it: “I’m deeply concerned about the authority our president seems to be asserting to summarily kill people suspected of criminal activity outside the law.”⁷

The United States military is presently enforcing a fuel blockade against vessels transporting to Cuba, and has threatened tariffs against countries and companies attempting to export oil; On October 2, 2026, the Coast Guard announced the interception of the Grace, a “dark fleet” ship bound for Cuba, with the cooperation of the Mexican government.⁸

Since President Trump’s return to office, national elections across Central and South America have also heavily favored right-wing parties and coalitions. While this change has been largely driven by domestic concerns, the Trump Administration has been known to endorse candidates and apply diplomatic pressure, possibly in a bid to expand American influence in the region.⁹

Lastly, of recent occurrence, the Greenland Security Deal was signed between the U.S., the Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland on September 22, 2026, resulting in the expansion of United States military access and its now permanent role in the security of Greenland and a framework for the restriction of foreign adversaries from establishing military and strategic presence on the island–one would not be mistaken in noting the deal’s striking resemblance to the principles of the Monroe Doctrine.¹⁰

What do these changes in United States military and political grand strategy represent? Under the current administration, the U.S. is clearly pursuing a reorientation of American power toward the Western Hemisphere, denying foreign rivals the ability to establish strategic access to the region. Two centuries after the first declaration, the Monroe Doctrine is once again an explicit tenet of American foreign policy, and appears here to stay.

1. “Office of the Historian. ‘The Monroe Doctrine, 1823.’ U.S. Department of State. Accessed September 30, 2026. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/monroe.” ↩︎
2. U.S. Department of Defense. 2026 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2026. https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-national-defense-strategy.pdf
   ↩︎
3. The White House. National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, DC: The White House, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
   ↩︎
4. U.S. Department of Defense. “This Week in DOW: Taking Down Maduro, Seizing Suspicious Vessels, Launching Arsenal Ships.” U.S. Department of Defense, 2026. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4374940/this-week-in-dow-taking-down-maduro-seizing-suspicious-vessels-launching-arsena/
   ↩︎
5. Forbes Breaking News. “‘This Is The Al-Qaeda Of The Western Hemisphere’: Hegseth Denounces ‘Terrorist’ Drug Traffickers.” YouTube, accessed October 3, 2026. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lsoqIF4XLo
   ↩︎
6. Nitzberg, Alex. “Hegseth Blasts ‘Narco-Terrorists’ Targeted by Trump Admin as ‘the al Qaeda of the Western Hemisphere.’” Fox News, October 31, 2025. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hegseth-blasts-narco-terrorists-targeted-trump-admin-the-al-qaeda-western-hemisphere.
   ↩︎
7. Coons, Chris. “Senator Coons Pushes Attorney General Pam Bondi on Weaponizing the DOJ and Unconstitutional Boat Strikes in Fiery Hearing.” U.S. Senate, October 7, 2025. https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-coons-pushes-attorney-general-pam-bondi-on-weaponizing-the-doj-and-unconstitutional-boat-strikes-in-fiery-hearing ↩︎
8.  U.S. Coast Guard. “Coast Guard Intercepts Motor Vessel Grace, Continues Operations to Interdict Illicit Drug Trafficking.” U.S. Coast Guard, 2026. https://www.news.uscg.mil/Press-Releases/Article/4616594/coast-guard-intercepts-motor-vessel-grace-continues-operations-to-interdict-ill/
   ↩︎
9.  Trump, Donald J. “Truth Social post, November 2025.” Truth Social, accessed October 3, 2026. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115629335172411031
   ↩︎
10.  The White House. “Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark Together with the Government of Greenland.” September 22, 2026. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/09/agreement-between-the-government-of-the-united-states-of-america-and-the-government-of-the-kingdom-of-denmark-together-with-the-government-of-greenland-to-amend-and-supplement-the-agreement-of-27-apri/
    ↩︎