After World War I, Germany paid reparations for its aggression, and Japan faced similar consequences after World War II. In a controversial shift, President Trump demands that the invaded, like Ukraine, compensate the U.S. for aid. Trump is set to sign a deal with Ukraine allowing the U.S. to tap into its mineral wealth, without offering security guarantees. Critics, including Representative Jim Himes, argue this transactional approach undermines traditional alliances and can lead to instability. While some Republicans praise Trump’s negotiations, experts warn that prioritizing immediate economic gain could harm long-term global security and American interests.
Post-World War I, Germany, which had invaded Belgium, was required to pay billions for the damages inflicted during the conflict.
Similarly, at the conclusion of World War II, Japan, after its invasion of the Philippines, was compelled to make reparations.
However, as President Trump seeks to bring an end to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he has reversed conventional U.S. foreign policy by insisting that the invaded nation, rather than the aggressor, should be the one to compensate.
On Friday, Mr. Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky are expected to sign an agreement that allows the United States to benefit from Ukraine’s mineral resources, an initiative Mr. Trump has characterized as reimbursement for the assistance that American taxpayers have extended to the war-affected country. Mr. Trump emphasized that the United States would not provide security guarantees to Ukraine in exchange.
This agreement might be advantageous for Ukraine, as closer economic ties with the United States could convey its own form of protection. Yet, it highlights Mr. Trump’s tendency to leverage even America’s longstanding allies as he employs a transactional method in foreign policy.
“Allies and partners are often dependent on us for a part or most of their security, and they are generally economically engaged with us,” stated Richard N. Haass, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations and advisor to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. “The Trump administration has transformed that dependency into a liability.”
Historically, the United States has supported its allies under the belief that such assistance fosters a more stable global order. Mr. Haass cited America’s efforts in producing arms for allied nations during World War II, the Marshall Plan, and the intervention that repelled Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
“By establishing a world where we proved that aggression results in failure, we aimed to reduce future aggressions,” he remarked.
However, Mr. Trump has signaled disinterest in traditional U.S. alliances, often assessing relationships by how much other countries contribute economically to the U.S.
Mr. Trump commenced his second term by employing economic pressure on neighboring countries to the north and south, threatening new tariffs. On Thursday, he announced that tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico would proceed as scheduled on Tuesday, and China would face an additional 10 percent tariff.
“We’ve been treated quite unfairly by numerous countries, including our allies — friend and foe alike,” Mr. Trump declared at a news conference on Thursday.
He has derided Canada as the 51st state and referred to its prime minister as a “governor.” Additionally, Mr. Trump has frequently expressed a desire to annex Greenland, take control of the Panama Canal, and fundamentally restructure U.S. relations with Europe and NATO.
Nevertheless, it is Mr. Trump’s alteration of the U.S. relationship with Russia and Ukraine that has raised the most alarm recently. Following years of a U.S. strategy aimed at isolating Moscow, Mr. Trump had a conversation with President Vladimir V. Putin and initiated talks with Russia about ending the conflict—initially without Ukraine’s involvement.
Now, Mr. Trump is on the verge of signing an agreement to share in the revenues from Ukraine’s natural resources. A draft of the deal, obtained by The New York Times, included only vague references to safeguarding Ukraine’s interests. It states that the United States “supports Ukraine’s effort to secure the guarantees needed for lasting peace.”
“It’s Mafia behavior,” commented Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “Zelensky, known for his bravery, should give Donald Trump the big middle finger and remind him that the only instance when NATO Article 5 was invoked was for the United States after 9/11, without Britain, France, Germany, or Belgium demanding a share of our oil in return.”
Mr. Trump stated on Thursday that, under the agreement, the United States would be “mining and extracting rare earth elements that are critically needed in our country.” However, he expressed skepticism about whether Ukraine truly possesses the valuable minerals desired by the U.S.
“You dig, and maybe the minerals aren’t exactly where you think they are, but we’ll invest significant time there,” he remarked. “It’ll be beneficial for Ukraine. It’s like a massive economic development initiative. Thus, it’ll be advantageous for both nations.”
Republicans in Congress, even some who have voiced opposition to Russian aggression, have supported Mr. Trump’s initiatives, portraying him as a fierce negotiator striving to secure the best deal for the United States. The mineral agreement has undergone multiple revisions, and its latest version, reviewed by The Times, includes more favorable terms for Ukraine than earlier drafts.
“He is a remarkable deal-maker, as everyone must recognize, regardless of personal opinions,” Speaker Mike Johnson stated during his weekly news conference.
Meghan L. O’Sullivan, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, indicated that the long-term repercussions of a transactional foreign policy may not be immediately evident.
Having served as a special assistant to President George W. Bush and as the deputy national security advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan, she observed that during that period, the United States dismissed any notion that it should seize control of those nations’ resources and withdrew from Iraq’s largest oil fields.
Transactional agreements might seem like short-term victories for America, she warned, but if the United States retreats from its traditional role of deterring aggression, it could result in a more severe economic landscape, with a globally less peaceful and less secure environment—outcomes that would not bode well for American prosperity.