North Korea’s July 4 launch of an ICBM pushes us to a full reckoning with our motives, values, and national existence. In columnist Charles Krauthammer’s words, for “25 years and five administrations, we have kicked the North Korean can down the road. We are now out of road.” North ...
The State Department issued the report on an internal “listening survey” on July 5. The report is not public, but reports indicate that its first recommendation is to define a mission for the Department of State. It also addresses a host of other concerns, and current and past State ...
In their June 26 meeting President Trump and Prime Minister Modi voiced their mutual admiration as the nations grapple with a complex relationship.
Under the idea to “Make America Great Again” the plan is to extract concessions, country by country, wielding U.S. economic power to reduce trade deficits.
Trump's proposed budget cuts 28% from the State Department’s funding, reducing foreign aid and de-funding a range of programs.
Trump’s election signals a “Jacksonian protest” of nativist sentiment and mistrust of elites—rejecting the liberal order that has kept peace and prosperity.
What could a passage on foreign policy in President Trump's inaugural speech look like? We take a stab at it.
In foreign policy, a nation acts as a singular entity, with citizens' identity reflected in its conduct. Today, our discourse projects our political dysfunction.
The global economy has been leaning on monetary policy—the printing of money by central banks —to avoid decline. But what are the spillover effects?
Trump is not alone in complaining about alliances. Others, for various reasons, dislike our relationship with Saudi Arabia or arrangements with Pakistan.
At Hiroshima, the U.S. should project a tone of deepening conciliation, highlighting that the real cement between us and other nations—in Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas—is a culture of freedom.
The only cure for the wariness that defines this year's election is for Americans to find common ground, not so much among political operatives of left and right, but rather between those who govern and the general population.
Visually and narratively attractive, packed with little-known facts and eye-catching clips, the film paints a faithful portrait of the U.S. Foreign Service while fair-mindedly probing a range of issues.
In the wake of the Paris attacks, American politicians of all stripes are rushing to burnish their security credentials. In their proposals they are undermining the one measure that might exhibit America’s basic motives in Syria, while adding nothing to U.S. security
Department of State: Role player under NSC or manager of foreign policy?
