Since taking office, President Donald Trump has stirred considerable debate over his unconventional foreign policy ideas, ranging from the bold suggestion of annexing Greenland to the outright proposal of retaking the Panama Canal. These assertions have triggered uncertainty within Washington and beyond, especially considering the administration's intent to impose hefty tariffs on imports from every country alongside additional military engagements.
Trump's history of praising authoritarian leaders, questioning NATO’s significance, and efforts to underfund the State Department have raised alarms. This situation prompts the question: to what extent can Congress serve as a counterbalance to Trump’s foreign policy instincts, which some view as dangerous and unorthodox?
With the Republican Party firmly holding the majority within both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the outlook for significant congressional opposition is dim. Nonetheless, there are indications of bipartisan efforts by some lawmakers prepared to maintain certain guardrails around U.S. foreign policy. These could encompass the safeguarding of alliances, the rejection of territory grab impulses, and the commitment to foreign aid budgets. Through these means, Congress aims to temper the chaos Trump’s America First agenda may engender.
During his first term, several influential Republicans cooperated with Democrats to uphold these guardrails. For example, when Trump proposed slashing U.S. spending on foreign diplomacy and assistance programs by one-third, Senate Republican Lindsey Graham and Senate Democrat Patrick Leahy, alongside their House counterparts, utilized their committee influence to preserve the international affairs budget.
This bipartisan spirit was evident when Trump challenged NATO's value. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan supported resolutions reiterative of U.S. commitment to NATO. More recently, Congress took legislative action to restrict Trump’s ability to withdraw from NATO without obtaining congressional approval.
Importantly, congressional lawmakers have also moved to protect security commitments with U.S. allies like South Korea. Trump’s insistence on prodding South Korea for increased defense spending and his unorthodox diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un raised concerns about America’s commitment to its allies. Congressional reaction led to various provisions in defense legislation aimed at constraining presidential authority on troop levels.
A survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs revealed widespread support for alliances among both parties, with 71 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats acknowledging the mutual benefits these alliances present.
Despite this, the current Republican majority appears more polarized than during Trump’s earlier term, with MAGA-aligned figures taking the forefront. Following Trump’s Greenland and Panama Canal remarks, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, under MAGA-friendly Brian Mast, emphasized Trump’s visionary ambitions for the nation, dismissing opposition as unfounded.
On the Senate side, sentiments are split. Traditional Reaganites, who advocate for military agency and moral leadership, remain influential, yet many Republican senators may still undercut Trump’s more aggressive tendencies, especially concerning military actions and foreign aid. Senators like McConnell, Thune, and Graham continue to champion foreign assistance and sustained alliance funding.
Notably, concerns over U.S. military aid and engagement with Ukraine present another area of division. While there is support within Congress for continuing military aid against Russian aggression, some remain wary of Trump's negotiations with Russia, fearing they might risk compromising Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Congress has also been attentive to Trump’s trade policies. Proposed tariffs, particularly on agricultural products, have ignited contention within the party. Senator Mike Rounds exemplified this concern, alluding to the dangers of retaliatory tariffs on American exports. If Trump pursues tariffs with such zeal, bipartisan efforts might emerge to impose checks on presidential power concerning international trade practices.
The Trump administration's recent foreign aid freeze has added to existing tensions. While the administration aimed to reassess aid allocations, critics express concern about its long-term ramifications on various international partnerships, including programs like PEPFAR, which has been instrumental in combating HIV/AIDS across Africa.
Senator Chris Murphy predicted potential adverse effects of the aid freeze, stating “This is alarmingly put at risk the lives of vulnerable people worldwide.” Further compounding this chaos, many NGOs have found themselves paralyzed and uncertain, being forced to halt operations as they await clarification from the government.
Despite Trump's allies' perceptions of the freeze as merely procedural, the rapid disruption highlights the precarious state of international aid and humanitarian efforts during this tumultuous transition.
Opposition from both parties has surfaced as Congress attempts to regain control over the executive's budgeting authority. With the nominee Russ Vought for OMB gaining traction, opposition leaders push back against policies perceived as circumventing Congress's spending powers.
Senator Jeff Merkley voiced concerns over the nomination, warning against Vought's previous involvement with withholding funds during Trump’s first term—actions leading to political strife, including Trump’s impeachment. The Senate faces these challenges head-on as the consequences of Trump's actions ripple through international relations. While some Republican lawmakers support the administration’s unorthodox strategies, others stress the importance of maintaining established international norms.
Overall, the tension between executive authority and congressional power remains at the forefront of political discourse. While Congress might not entirely displace Trump's foreign policy approach, bipartisan efforts can still strive to establish necessary constraints, ensuring the U.S. maintains its leadership role abroad.