- What does Donald Trump's return to power mean for America's role in the world?

This week on "Firing Line", President-elect Trump says he can end the war between Russia and Ukraine immediately.

- I will end that war in one day, it'll take 24 hours.

- [Margaret] He has questioned the value of the NATO alliance.

- If they're not gonna pay, we're not gonna protect, okay?

- [Margaret] And has vowed to impose massive tariffs on China.

- I will impose whatever tariffs are required, 100%, 200%, 1000%.

- [Margaret] But what would his return to the White House actually mean?

- I think we're gonna pay an enormously high chaos premium because the President's conclusions will be unpredictable for many of America's allies and also for America's adversaries.

- [Margaret] Kori Schake is the Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

She's a critic of both Biden and Trump's foreign policies, but has not backed Trump in the past three presidential elections.

As Trump names key administration positions, including a Fox News anchor as Secretary of Defense, what does Kori Schake say now?

- [Announcer] "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, and by the following, corporate funding is provided by Stephens Inc. - Kori Schake, welcome to "Firing Line".

- It's a pleasure.

- The transition to Donald Trump's second presidency is underway.

How is the world President Biden will hand off to Trump in January different from the one that Trump inherited in 2016?

- I do think that the world is more dangerous, and America's adversaries, China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are looking to change the patterns of accepted international behavior.

And so that puts a higher premium on American defense preparedness, on America's alliances, and on reestablishing deterrence that I think President Biden didn't have to do and President Trump didn't have to do in 2016.

- You're a long time Republican who served in the administrations of George H.W.

Bush, President Clinton, President George W. Bush, and in recent years, you have been critical of both President Biden and President-elect Trump's foreign policies.

You supported Trump's opponents in the last three elections because of the danger that you believe he poses to quote, "constitutional governance."

Help explain to the audience in really basic terms what a conservative internationalist foreign policy is that you advocate.

- My AEI colleague Yuval Levin describes conservatives as people who believe in institutions, right?

That there are important constraints that the American system places on power.

So I think respect for the limits on power is one important element of conservative internationalism.

A second is the belief that a strong America, economically, militarily, politically, is not only good for our own security, but good for the security of others.

- Mm.

- You know, there's this beautiful phrase from President McKinley that, "Let no good man ever fear the approach of an American army."

And I think conservative internationalism believes both in the part of a strong and a principled American military that is feared by our adversaries, but not by our friends.

A third element of conservative internationalism that I think is really important is appreciating that we need friends and allies to get to the economy of scale of cost effectively managing the international order, that is, even if the United States is strong enough to do it by ourselves, having friends and allies that wanna succeed and help us to succeed makes it more affordable, makes it more acceptable to an American public that is sometimes wary of its own government, and that gets the magnitude of resources that we need to overwhelm problems that may occur.

- How would you characterize Trump's foreign policy?

- Well, the first thing is that, as with domestic policy, I think we're gonna pay an enormously high chaos premium because the President's conclusions will be unpredictable for many of America's allies and also for America's adversaries.

And so, if allies don't know what to expect, they can't align their policies with ours and support us.

And if adversaries don't know what to expect, they may stumble across a red line in the president's policy that they didn't understand.

So that's the first thing.

The second thing is I think the president underestimates the reaction to his strong moves, on tariffs, for example.

I think they're underestimating the extent to which other countries, even friendly countries, are going to feel the need to protect their own markets if we impose tariffs of the magnitudes the president is talking about.

- Democrats are still trying to understand exactly how they lost the election, but there is a theme that has emerged.

It's that they position themselves as defenders of democracy and the international order at a time when voters are increasingly skeptical of the value of both.

How does one convince Americans who were skeptical of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who blame globalization and free trade for their economic struggles, that a US led world order is worth preserving?

- That is such a great challenge, and I think we are still living through the long shadow that the failures and challenges of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and also the 2008 financial crisis have cemented in people's minds.

So I think the first thing to do is acknowledge that those are legitimate complaints and concerns that Americans have.

They worry that we are too engaged in the rest of the world and not engaged enough in the things Americans most care about, right?

That most American families care about.

And so, connecting America's international involvement to the things that people care about, to the prosperity and the security of our own country is, I think, the place to start.

No country as strong as the United States is has ever had as much voluntary assistance in keeping itself secure and prosperous as the United States has, and that's why we should care about allies.

The United States won the geopolitical lottery, we have Canada and Mexico and oceans surrounding us, and no threat from those things, so we're not natural internationalists as Americans, we have to be persuaded to go out in the world because we feel safe and prosperous without going out into the world.

But sooner or later, the problems that are making Europe insecure, that are making Asia insecure, those problems are eventually going to be problems the United States cares about and has to get involved in solving.

And I really like the way George Shultz, former Secretary of State in the Reagan administration put it that foreign policy is like gardening, you know, pulling weeds when they're small is actually easier and less damaging than having to deal with them when they're large.

- You acknowledge that there were important foreign policy achievements during the first Trump administration, increased defense spending, the Abraham Accords in the Middle East, stronger policies towards China.

Are there areas that you are hopeful for a Trump 2.0 foreign policy?

- Yes, there are, and I can think of three right away.

The first is increased defense spending is now a necessity for the United States.

We have a three region strategy and a one region military.

We have been taking peace dividends since the mid 1990s, and we now have to reconstruct the strength that we need to be safe and prosperous.

I believe President Trump will do that much better than President Biden did.

A second priority is rebuilding America's deterrence.

Military strength is part of that, but it's not all of that.

We need to stop worrying so much what our adversaries might do and start acting in a way that our adversaries have to worry what we might do.

And seeing some of the things that President Trump did in his first term, the aggressiveness with which Soleimani was assassinated, the targeting of Russian mercenaries that were operating in Syria had good effect in that regard.

And the third thing, which you rightly pointed to, is the Abraham Accords, which did, you know, getting Arab states in the Middle East to acknowledge the degree to which they and Israel had common interests in constraining Iranian malevolence was I think one of the most important achievements of the Trump administration, and the way that Israel has now punctured Iran's sense of strategic depth through proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis is reshaping the Middle East in an interesting and important way that I very much hope the Trump administration will put diplomatic and military effort to helping the countries of the Abraham Accords include other countries in the region and diminish Iran's malevolent influence.

- President-elect Trump this week announced that he selected Fox News Television host Pete Hegseth to be the Secretary of Defense, saying that, "Pete is tough, smart, and a true believer in America first."

Hegseth is a Trump ally who has criticized the military for being ineffective and woke and he has said that, "Women should not serve in combat," he is a Iraq war veteran.

He has also been called by veterans advocate Paul Rieckhoff, quote, "Undoubtedly the least qualified nominee for SECDEF in American history and the most overtly political."

Senator Lisa Murkowski's reaction was just simply, "Wow."

What is your reaction to the nomination of Pete Hegseth to be the defense secretary?

- Well, I will acknowledge there's a lot of anxiety about whether a Trump administration will seek to involve the military in political issues.

You know, the 250 year unbroken record of the American military staying out of the politics of our governance in democracy is a really good thing, so I hope the administration will tread very lightly on pulling the military into political and cultural issues.

- May I follow up there though?

Does this appointment, or does this selection of Pete Hegseth suggest to you that there is potentially a risk at the politicization of the Defense Department with Pete Hegseth at its head?

- Yeah, I certainly do think that's a risk, but I think the place to affix responsibility for politicization of the military is with the President, not with the Secretary of Defense, right?

The president deserves to have cabinet officials who are committed to carrying out his policies and his priorities.

- To that point, though, president-elect Trump has promised, and he promised during his campaign, to get rid of quote, unquote, "Woke generals," and Trump allies have now drafted in an executive order that would create a board of retired senior military personnel to review three and four star officers and recommend firing those who are deemed unfit to lead.

Is it your sense that this is creating a stronger military, or does this risk some of the politicization that you warn about?

- I think that's a bad idea.

I think it will, even if it doesn't create serious problems, it will damage the relationship between the American public and its military.

And so, if Americans believe their military is becoming a political tool that is more beholden to the president than to the Constitution, that will affect recruiting, it will affect the public perception of the military.

I think actually our security and our democracy would be better served by not dragging our military into political disputes like that.

- You have written extensively about the relationship between civilians and the military.

It has been suggested that the Insurrection Act might be used to use the military on American soil, perhaps in the roundup of undocumented immigrants.

Can you speak to this question of the dangers of pushing the military further into the realm of domestic politics and policy?

- It has been the case in the United States since 1878 that the American military cannot be used for domestic law enforcement unless the president declares there is an insurrection occurring, right?

That's what the Insurrection Act does, and it gives the president wide latitude for the use of the American military to suppress insurrection domestically.

President Trump wanted to do that in the summer of 2020 to send American military forces onto the streets of the country, including to use violence against protestors.

I think absent somebody genuinely trying to overthrow the government, that's a terrible idea because it will cause Americans to think very differently about their military.

We have been so fortunate not to have to fear the American military in our domestic space, and that is a legacy to treasure.

If the American people begin to fear our military as a domestic force in the use of violence for law enforcement, or even as a political counterweight to the president's adversaries, that will change for a very long time how the public views the military, it will change who joins the military, and those are damaging precedents to set in a free society.

- Russia is now receiving support from North Korean troops on the battlefield, thanks to a, quote, "Comprehensive strategic partnership and mutual defense treaty," that was ratified between Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un.

This escalation in the Ukraine War you have written is actually a sign of Russian weakness.

How do these developments impact Trump's promise to end the Ukraine war in one day once he is president?

- Well, the deepening cooperation between China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran really is dangerous for the United States.

North Korea providing weapons, providing soldiers will help Russia win the war.

We need to worry about, and I hope President Trump is worried about, what North Korea got in return for sending soldiers to fight and die in Ukraine, better missile guidance, which would improve North Korea's ability to use its hundred or so nuclear weapons to threaten the United States.

So I think it gives some urgency to President Trump's commitment to end the war in Ukraine.

I also think though that it's a reminder that President Biden was so worried about the US escalating and not worried nearly enough about all the ways Russia was escalating the war in Ukraine and the provision of North Korean troops is an overt escalation that the Biden administration has done nothing to counter or respond to.

So I very much hope that President Trump's policy will respond to Russian escalation by greater assistance to Ukraine, because that's what will bring the war to an end, Russia losing and Ukraine winning.

- In 1979 when he was commander of NATO forces in Europe, then Colonel Alexander Haig appeared on the original "Firing Line" with William F. Buckley Jr. and he defended the alliance against those who said the US carried too much of the burden.

Take a look at this.

- I understand that your general attitude, unlike that of some of your predecessors, is that in fact the Europeans are pulling their oar in NATO.

- Yes, but I wanna parse that out a bit.

I'm not happy with the level of defense support on either side of the Atlantic today.

On the other hand, I reject the thesis held by many Americans that this is a problem that's been on America's back since World War II, and its time we got it off our back.

- You know, during the campaign, former President Trump wavered on the US commitment to defending NATO allies that, quote, "Don't pay."

Explain why you think this could be counterproductive when it comes to reestablishing deterrence.

- Yeah, I think President Trump is right that America's allies, particularly in Europe, countries that are incredibly prosperous should be doing more for their defense.

But there are two problems with the president's approach to getting them to do that.

The first is threatening allies with abandonment will encourage Russia and other bad guys to test whether we will actually defend our allies if they are attacked.

What I think President Trump and the people closest to him overlook is that American's soft power, the magnetism of who we are and what we do in the world is the most cost effective way to get the support we need.

The president thinks that by threatening allies with abandonment, that we will get them to do more.

And I think that's a lot riskier proposition than the president and the people closest to him acknowledge.

The president's proud of himself as a good negotiator with allies, getting them to raise their defense spending.

But what he overlooks is that may actually tempt Russia to test that proposition.

And the second reason I think the president's approach to this is mistaken is that if our allies worry they will be abandoned, they're not gonna necessarily make strong, brave choices and do exactly what we would do.

They may very well fear incapable of defending themselves, and therefore make compromises that aren't in their interest, but also aren't in our interests, right?

If Ukraine is forced to concede to Russia, that doesn't make Europe safer, that encourages Russia to try their luck on other countries who they believe deserve to be under Russian influence.

- One more question, Kori.

Elon Musk spent over 100 million dollars to help get Trump elected and is expected to have significant influence in the administration.

He has already been on calls with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, with President Erdogan from Turkey.

Should we worry that Musk's business interests will play a role in foreign policy?

- Having somebody who's not a member of the government on calls with foreign leaders does make me uncomfortable, especially when that person's a major international business figure because of the prospect for corruption, for using insider information about American policy decisions for business purposes is, you know, it's a seedy form of corruption we should try and prevent in our government.

- Does the challenge of individuals having access to high level conversations without security clearances give you pause?

- Very much so!

- Explain why.

- The reason we have the Federal Bureau of Investigation do background checks on people who are coming into government jobs where they will have access to sensitive and classified information is to make sure that they are not using it in ways invidious to the government, either for espionage or for corruption, or for undercutting the policy that the government's attempting to enact.

- There are reports that new Trump administration officials will get rid of the entire FBI security clearance vetting process, I suspect you think this is a bad idea.

- That's a terrible idea.

It will reduce trust in the people coming into those positions, it will create the perception of corruption and foreign influence in a way that will actually be bad for the Trump administration in addition to bad for the country.

- Final question, in your 2018 book, "America vs the West" you wrote of a second Trump term, quote, "An American president who perseveres in destroying the liberal world order and an electorate that chooses so destructive a force for a second term of office will have compromised the confidence of America's liberal partners, making us leadership impossible to revive."

- I sure hope I'm wrong.

- What is at stake over the next four years?

- I think several things are at stake.

One is the checks and balances domestically in the American system that the Constitution and legislation have put in place in order to make sure that power remains dispersed in the American system.

I do think that's genuinely at risk in a Trump administration.

The second thing I think is at risk is the magnetism of the United States as a city on a hill.

I just think when things get scary, and internationally things are getting scarier, our adversaries, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are increasingly deepening their cooperation in ways that will be a challenge to us, and we will want to have friends and allies helping us to manage those problems.

- Kori Schake, thank you for joining me on "Firing Line".

- It's been a pleasure, Margaret, thank you for having me.

- [Announcer] "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, the Fairweather Foundation, and by the following.

Corporate funding is provided by Stephens Inc. (bright music) (bright music continues) (bright music continues) (logo chiming) (gentle music) - [Narrator] You are watching PBS.