The Top 10 Ways Trump Has Made America Weaker

Foreign Policy | Stephen M. Walt

U.S. President Donald Trump's second-term policies have systematically weakened American global standing and military readiness while escalating a conflict with Iran that depleted critical munitions stockpiles. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's efforts to purge non-aligned officers and force ideological conformity have eroded military professionalism, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio oversaw withdrawal from over 60 international organizations, leaving crucial diplomatic positions vacant.

Under this administration, an American Foreign Service Association survey revealed 98 percent low morale and 86 percent operational impairment among diplomatic personnel. Concurrently, cuts to federal research funding and the appointment of science skeptics like Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accelerated a severe brain drain of physics doctoral graduates, benefiting potential adversaries like China. These compounding actions—alongside trade disputes with allies Canada and Mexico, reversed arms commitments to Ukraine, and politicization of the justice system under Attorney General Todd Blanche—threaten foundational elements of American national security, economic competitiveness, and global deterrence.

Comment

Sustained high-tempo maritime intercept operations in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf rapidly deplete carrier strike group magazine depth. Unplanned extensions for aircraft carriers like USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) accelerate depot-level maintenance backlogs while burning through finite stockpiles of SM-3 and SM-6 surface-to-air missiles. This consumption rate exposes acute vulnerabilities in the defence industrial base's ability to replace complex munitions during an active crisis.

The diversion of MIM-104 Patriot interceptors to Middle Eastern operational theatres directly impairs air defence capacity in U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. Munitions expenditure at current rates creates structural trade-offs that limit naval rotational readiness across the Western Pacific. Consequently, US Naval Forces Central Command's high operational pace diminishes long-term fleet availability for high-end deterrence in primary strategic theatres.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If high-rate expenditure of MIM-104 Patriot and SM-6 interceptors in Middle Eastern operational theatres continues, which trade-off presents the greater operational risk for U.S. Indo-Pacific Command—accepting diminished magazine depth in the Western Pacific or scaling back carrier strike group rotations in Central Command?

The operational evidence points toward missile magazine depletion in U.S. Indo-Pacific Command as the far more severe structural vulnerability. While rotational carrier gaps in Central Command can be partially mitigated through land-based air assets, shortfalls in advanced interceptors like the SM-6 directly undermine fleet air defence against high-volume anti-ship missile raids in a Western Pacific crisis. Consequently, sustained CENTCOM consumption rapidly degrades high-end deterrence posture against peer adversaries in East Asia.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here