The spectacle in Helsinki is over. Now it’s time for Congress—and the American people—to act.
Here’s how the president’s bets look when viewed through the lens of behavioral economics.
And it does not involve a commitment to change the horrible and predictable outcome of the civil war.
History proves they can help the U.S. keep other countries in check.
In this one area at least, the administration’s policy has been focused and effective.
The resources the administration is willing to commit are at yawning variance with its ambitious goals.
The administration is imperiling the very minority communities it claims to want to protect.
Trump’s national-security officials are making many of the same arguments Bush’s did in 2003.
The limits of “moderating influence” on the president of the United States
The United States retains the means, and the international support, to move against Iran in other areas.
Undercutting Rex Tillerson’s diplomatic efforts with North Korea is an invitation to catastrophe.
As Trump considers military options, he’s drawing unenforceable red lines.
Those who believe the people of the Middle East unsuited to democracy may think their bias has been borne out by events. That is not what I saw in Iraq.
By avoiding timetables and holding Pakistan accountable, he seeks to reverse the mistakes of the past.
Even if threatening North Korea with “fire and fury” wasn’t intended as an ultimatum, its consequences could be serious.
There’s a delicious irony in the Trump team’s affection for the historian—who repeatedly shows how populists lead societies to ruin.
The administration wants to expand the armed forces’ commitments, even while contracting spending.
The Cabinet and National Security Council are developing sensible strategies. But they don’t survive contact with the president.
What America can learn from 19th-century Britain
What’s behind the president’s inaction?