Trying to piece Donald Trump’s foreign policy together, one cannot be blamed for missing the grand strategy in it all. Maybe Trump is a realist; or maybe he wants to dismantle the US-led international order. Perhaps he is purely a dealmaker.



Whatever the approach, one theme is consistent in Trump’s actions and words: his desire to make US foreign policy appear as unpredictable as possible. As Trump so succinctly summarized it himself during a foreign policy speech in April 2016: “We have to be unpredictable.”

Call it a “doctrine of unpredictability”, if you like.

Trump believes that the US should pursue the foreign policy of a gambler, shedding the more “predictable” aspects of foreign policy that have, until now, helped keep the world somewhat stable. As gambler-in-chief, Trump’s perceived unpredictability will supposedly give him leverage to negotiate anything with anyone at anytime.

The idea might not seem so ridiculous at first blush – after all, a good poker face is an important part of success when staring down opponents.

But foreign policy isn’t a poker room at a Trump casino. The only thing that a doctrine of unpredictability is really sure to do is gamble with national security – shattering alliances, destabilizing relationships with adversaries and suppressing public debate in the US.

Foreign policy isn’t a poker room at a Trump casino.

Crafting a foreign policy of unpredictability, Trump believes, would give the US the upper hand in its dealings around the world. This strategy is premised on the notion that friends and enemies alike should not know what the US would do in any given situation. As Trump once put it: “I don’t want them to know what I’m thinking.”

This is a terrifying prospect for those around the world who rely on American leadership to underwrite global peace and prosperity.

His foreign policy of unpredictability would mean raising questions about US commitments to allies from Europe to Asia. When asked about US alliances with Japan and South Korea, Trump said: “There is going to be a point at which we just can’t do this anymore.” When asked about Nato, his sarcastic response made it clear that he believes that the US is committed to too many alliances: “We defend everybody. When in doubt, come to the United States. We’ll defend you.”



The dangers here are manifold. Undercutting US alliances emboldens adversaries to test those alliances, weakening regional stability in places like Europe and Asia where Russia and China are already worrying neighbors.

And while Trump believes he can squeeze more money from US allies in an approach reminiscent of a protection racket rather than an alliance, those allies may very well come to believe they too can get better deals elsewhere. Apparently Trump is comfortable with this, as was evident from his willingness to see other countries in north-east Asia acquire nuclear weapons.

The consequences of this scenario could deal a blow to US national security interests. The deeply destabilizing effect the absence of alliances would have on north-east Asia, for instance, would be devastating. Likewise, a Nato without a reliable US ally could be the straw that breaks Europe’s back.

Much has been written about how Trump’s desire for unpredictability is akin to what Richard Nixon reportedly referred to as his “madman theory”. In 1968, Nixon told his adviser HR Haldeman: “I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war.” Later, in 1969, consistent with the so-called madman theory, Nixon raised military alert levels in what some analysts believe was an attempt to rattle the Soviet and North Vietnamese leaders.



While some amount of unpredictability is indeed necessary when dealing with adversaries, too much ambiguity can be destabilizing. Trump’s policy statements to date don’t leave others wondering how far he’ll go – they leave everyone wondering what his basic policy is.

For instance, Trump has signaled wildly different instincts on how he would deter Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. In a Washington Post interview, Trump stated: “I don’t think we are going to start World War III over what they did”, while in a New York Times interview he said: “Look, would I go to war? There’s a question I wouldn’t want to answer.”

It seems much more likely that adversaries would interpret this foreign policy of unpredictability as malleable, rudderless and unprincipled, something they can take advantage of rather than something to be feared.



This weakness would be exacerbated by a perception that Trump does not have a firm grasp of foreign policy. Whether it’s the “one China” policy, nuclear weapons or the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, reading Trump’s tweets and listening to his statements make it hard to believe that he has a firm grasp of any top foreign policy issues. His use of “unpredictability” as a mask for his ignorance can only last until world events and the need for a real-time US response reveal otherwise.



There’s a crucial difference between employing the madman theory and being an actual madman.

Trump’s doctrine of unpredictability will also have consequences domestically. When talking with the media, Trump has used the unpredictability excuse numerous times to evade answering foreign policy questions. If this continues as the Trump administration’s public approach, unpredictability could become a guise for withholding information from the American people.

The aftermath of Nixon’s presidency – including the Church committee investigations that revealed tremendous executive overreach and violations of the law – made very clear the perils of a president and an executive branch that doesn’t believe in transparency in the conduct of foreign policy.

In foreign policy, every American should demand predictability – and transparency – from the president. US national security depends on it.

This is an abridged version on as essay the originally appeared in Democracy Journal.

