Trump’s foreign policy is still ‘America First’ – what does that mean, exactly?

  At the Republican National Convention, supporters of President Trump’s reelection bid have celebrated his attempts to build a Mexico border wall, his promise to “bring our troops home”, and his pledge to end U.S. “reliance on China.”

  All are components of the “America First” agenda Trump ran on in 2016. Back then, he promised to “shake the rust off America’s foreign policy.”

Richard M. Ebeling: Trump’s economic warfare targets innocent bystanders

  An often forgotten truth is that it is not just military warfare that can cause injury to innocent bystanders, the same happens in economic warfare initiated by governments as well. But in the latter case, the human “collateral damage” is a targeted victim.

  On March 29, 2017, The Wall Street Journal ran a story highlighting the Trump Administration’s likely intention on getting tough in trade talks about American beef sales to the European Union. Being more in tune with “nature” and the “natural” than the United States, the European Union long ago imposed trade restrictions on the importation of American beef that has been bred with the use of artificial hormones.

Executive power and the role of Congress in the Paris climate and Iran nuclear agreements

  In recent months, multilateral efforts have produced two historic agreements aimed at improving global security: the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris climate agreement.

  The Iran nuclear agreement, which blocks Iran’s nuclear capacity in exchange for a gradual lifting of economic sanctions, was finalized in July and is expected to be implemented imminently. Before negotiations concluded, Congress passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which gave Congress a 60-day period in which it could seek to pass a joint resolution of disapproval. On September 10, all but four Democrats in the U.S. Senate voted to filibuster such a resolution. The agreement, which is nonbinding under international law, therefore proceeded without the need for a presidential veto.

Matthew Duss: U.N. status upgrade for Palestine presents new dynamic

  This week the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly—138 countries in favor, 9 opposed, and 41 abstaining—to upgrade the status of Palestine from “non-member observer entity” to “non-member observer state.” That the measure passed was not a surprise. What was a surprise, however, was the number of close U.S. partners—particularly members of the European Union—who either voted for the resolution or abstained.

  While the conventional wisdom holds that the status upgrade is largely symbolic, it is important to understand that the symbolism serves a political purpose. As Palestinian leaders explain it, the U.N. bid was undertaken in large part out of frustration with the failure of the U.S.-led peace process of the past several years to produce tangible progress toward the end of occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state.