American Scholars Ring the Bell on Trump’s 2nd Term Presidency, Says This About Trump

As the possibility of a second term for former President Donald Trump looms on the political horizon, scholars and political analysts are increasingly concerned about the potential implications for U.S. foreign policy. One pressing question is whether Trump could, by a single tweet, withdraw the United States from international organizations and treaties, including the United Nations and NATO.

Simultaneously, concerns are being raised about the scope of presidential power under President Joe Biden, particularly regarding military engagements in the Middle East without congressional approval. Legal experts argue that while the president has significant authority over foreign policy, the process of withdrawing from international organizations and treaties is more complex than a single executive action, Yale University Press on Monday, June 17.

The U.S. Constitution grants the president the power to negotiate treaties, but ratification and withdrawal typically require congressional involvement. For instance, withdrawing from NATO would necessitate a formal process, including consultations with allied nations and likely congressional approval, given the treaty’s significant implications for national security and international stability.

However, Trump’s past actions suggest a willingness to challenge established norms and procedures. During his first term, Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from several international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal, actions that, while controversial, were within his executive purview.

This precedent has fueled concerns that Trump could take similarly drastic steps if re-elected, potentially attempting to withdraw from NATO and the United Nations, though these actions would likely face substantial legal and political challenges. On the other hand, President Joe Biden’s approach to foreign policy has also raised significant concerns about the concentration of executive power.

Critics argue that Biden could potentially escalate U.S. military involvement in the Middle East—such as in Gaza, Yemen, Iran, and the Red Sea—through actions like supplying weapons, ordering drone strikes, and deploying Special Forces, all without direct congressional approval.

This critique centers on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which has been used by multiple administrations to justify military actions without new congressional mandates. The use of drone strikes and cyber operations has become a hallmark of modern U.S. military strategy, often conducted under broad interpretations of executive authority.

For instance, the Obama and Trump administrations both utilized drone strikes extensively in regions like Yemen and Somalia, citing the need to combat terrorism. Biden, too, has continued this trend, emphasizing a targeted approach to counterterrorism but raising concerns about the potential for unchecked executive power and mission creep.