Disclaimer: This transcript has been generated by AI. It is not a fully edited and proofread text.

Host: America's semi-quincentennial, marking 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, gives pause to reflect on the state of a nation that appears to be anything but united by an increasingly unpopular and erratic president, who appears intent on hijacking the anniversary to promote MAGA, Christian nationalism, and, well, himself. You're listening to the latest podcast from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, or SWP for short, here in Berlin. In today's episode, we'll ask why America's system of checks and balances is malfunctioning, and what MAGA's foreign and domestic policies mean for the rest of the world, not least for Europe. I'm your host, Esme Nicholson, and to discuss the state of the republic, I'm joined today by SWP's very own Johannes Thimm and Sascha Lohmann. Sascha Lohmann's research focuses on the domestic conditions of US foreign policy and on international sanctions. Sascha, welcome to the SWP studio.

Sascha Lohmann: Thanks for having me.

Host: Good to see you here. And Johannes Thimm's research also looks at how domestic politics impact US foreign policy, how it interplays with international organizations, and America's relationship with international law. Johannes, thank you for being here today.

Johannes Thimm: Good to be with you.

Host: So, for the president, this anniversary appears to be more about garish ballrooms and commercial cage fights than about the state of the nation. What are we to make of this, and is any of it actually strategy, Sascha?

Sascha Lohmann: Well, if there were any strategy in the ongoing celebrations, I would describe it as revisionism. So, what do I mean by revisionism? I think it's a redefinition of key events in US history, for example, the discovery, the so-called discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus, but also the civil war and the civil rights era. But it's also a rehabilitation of key figures, such as Confederate military generals, President Andrew Jackson, and also neglecting certain leaders, for example, of the civil rights movement. It also consists of a recasting of central concepts, such as freedom of speech or separation of church and state. And I think it's also a rewriting of foundational narratives on US national identity. And here, I mean, the privileging of certain attributes, such as being white, being Christian, being male or socially conservative, which is the key markers of the MAGA movement, I think.

Host: So, quite a lot more strategy than first meets the eye. Johannes, what's your take?

Johannes Thimm: Well, I see the festivities in the context of Trump trying to build his own legacy. We saw that he wants to erect a lot of monuments to himself in Washington, D.C. For me, the UFC championship on the White House lawn ties right into this. And it's really remarkable that Donald Trump doesn't seem to care about policy very much anymore, even in the domestic context. But he spends a lot of time talking about these, what I would call vanity projects or ego projects, to cement his own legacy, to satisfy his own itch of making a legacy for himself. And he's really neglecting even domestic politics, which isn't playing very well with the public.

Host: And how would you say that this at least apparent lack of strategy actually impact policy and certainly all of this sort of legacy making and vanity projects? Sascha, perhaps you could start with how it impacts U.S. foreign policy.

Sascha Lohmann: It is the thing that some actually have hoped that Trump's second term would be transformative and also shape many conflicts around the world in a more positive fashion. But as it turned out, I think it shaped much of those conflicts in a more negative fashion. And I think Iran is the latest example of that. We saw the MOU, the Memorandum of Understanding. It's a 14-paragraph framework agreement based on certain points that the U.S. and the Iranian side agreed to negotiate in the next 60 days. But if you look at how this agreement came into place, you saw a lot of the key characteristics of how Trump's personality impacted U.S. foreign policy. And overall, I think it's a heavy reliance on coercive tactics, including the use of military force. It's also a blatant disregard of international law, including the use of force, the prohibition on the use of force, including freedom of navigation and innocent passage. And I think this is an example of how this peculiar erratic style of foreign policymaking has actually made the world less secure because U.S. foreign policy has become much more unpredictable and erratic as a result.

Host: And Johannes, what about strategy on a domestic front or the apparent lack of it? How is that impacting domestic policy?

Johannes Thimm: Well, the puzzling observation is that Trump is behaving at the moment in a way that really doesn't help the Republicans, that really doesn't help his own party. When President Trump started his second term, he was quite well prepared in comparison with his first term. And the whole administration behaved quite purposefully. We might not have agreed with the direction of the policy, but they were actually very strategic about implementing certain parts of Trump's agenda, not least the consolidation of his own power and making sure that he can implement his will, so to speak. And now he's doing a lot of things which really hurt the Republicans' chances in the midterm elections. He's supporting extreme candidates in the primaries. Some of the incumbents who would have a better chance of winning in the general election of the primaries are getting kicked out. He's forcing his party to vote on very unpopular votes. So one example is this $1.8 billion slush fund that Trump wanted Congress to pass to be able to pay out his allies for what he called the weaponization of the Justice Department against them, which is really unpopular. Other examples are, of course, the ballroom that he wants to build. And even legislation like the expansion of the authorization to conduct surveillance for the intelligence agencies is being hampered by certain poison pills that Trump wants to put into that legislation. So he cares more about his own vanity projects than he cares about good policy. And he cares more about his own legacy than he cares about the chances of his own party in the next election.

Host: Well, it's not just Trump making the semi-quincentennial all about himself. The media fixates on him. We're talking about him. And he is, after all, the president. But in the context of 250 years of American independence, are there signs that today's programs are actually the result of something that started prior to Trump? Sasha, to what extent is this actually also about MAGA ideology?

Sascha Lohmann: Well, I think he optimizes a trend that has started in the 1960s with respect to the radicalization of the Republican Party. But it's also a trend that has been there ever since the establishment of the republic and even the Declaration of Independence. Because, I mean, the promise in this Declaration of Independence of equality has never been fully fulfilled. And the struggle to make progress on that promise has been met repeatedly by really powerful backlash movements. And I think the MAGA movement is just the latest example of this backlash. And I think it also is separate and distinct and different from previous backlash movements in respect to its ability to influence political events and its access to the levers of power. So I think this nation, and Samuel Huntington wrote this book in 2004 on who are we, is an example of how this nation still struggles to define its identity and what kind of political community it should be.

Host: And MAGA is now taking advantage of that.

Sascha Lohmann: It's one side and it's one answer. It's a white Christian male Christian religious movement. But we don't really see the other America in these times and in these celebrations and festivities. But it's still there. But it's not at power right now.

Host: We'll come to other alternatives a little bit later. But, Johannes, what institutional changes have enabled such a concentration of chief executive power in Trump?

Johannes Thimm: So, we have been talking a lot lately about the erosion of democracy, of democratic norms, about Trump's authoritarian tendencies, about the concentration of power in the White House, in the executive. And all of these developments, of course, didn't start with Trump. Basically, throughout the 20th century, the balance of power in the system of checks and balances has shifted towards the executive. Some call this the imperial presidency. This development was started mostly by external crises, mainly World War I and II necessitated the executive office becoming bigger, becoming more powerful. This continued throughout the Cold War, the war on terror. And under Trump, we really, we've reached a new climax in a sense that he really doesn't want to be restrained or restricted by other institutions in any way that he's willing to ignore Congress or the courts whenever he can. And what he's implementing now has been a strain in the conservative party, basically, since the beginning of the 1980s. In the 1980s, conservative lawyers and theoreticians started arguing that we really need a unified executive, that the executive is really more important than the other two branches of the government. And that's now being implemented. But as I said, Trump is a new climax in this long development, but it didn't begin with him.

Host: Well, as you say, it didn't begin with him. But does it end with Trump? I'm guessing not. I mean, what's next? And are the hardliners simply waiting in the wings? Trump has just turned 80. And what chances do the Democrats or even the Republicans have of changing this current course, Sascha?

Sascha Lohmann: Yeah, maybe the first part of your question first. I think Trumpism will outlive Trump. So also when he exits the political stage, his ideas and the ideology we talked about, the backlash will stay. His successor is almost already chosen, J.D. Vance. It depends a little bit on how he performs now with the Iran deal negotiations, I guess. But still, he is the new leader of this populist, ethno-nationalist, white Christian movement, so to speak. And also, I think the damage has been done. Johannes talked a lot about the institutions so far and the institutional design. And I think we see also a certain amount of elite restraint that the Constitution actually enables to function, that elites kind of not put too much pressure on these areas, the gray areas of the Constitution, where political agreement and political collaboration is much more important than just legal clarification. And so in this respect, I think the roots of partisan polarization are still there. And whoever will follow him will have the choice. But I am less optimistic that the unity, the bipartisanship will somehow return. And this is, I think, exacerbated by the kind of institutional dysfunction. And it's going to be really hard to reverse this trend. And it may take a long time.

Host: Johannes, I mean, Sascha has just alluded to Vance, of course. Maybe we can also talk a little bit more about what one could expect in Vance advancing Trumpism, as it were.

Johannes Thimm: Well, we don't know very much about J.D. Vance yet and how he would behave. But I have a hunch that he would be more strategic than Donald Trump is now. And as Sascha alluded to, he really is an ideological hardliner. He's more ideological and more consistent than Donald Trump is when it comes to that. But I would reiterate what Sascha already alluded to, the fact that repairing democratic institutions, reconstituting democratic norms, also the trust between political actors, not seeing political competitors as enemies, but as competitors in the game of democracy, that will be really hard and that will take a long time, even in the best case scenario. So even if the next president doesn't come from the Trump circle, if he or she is a Democrat or is a Republican, which follows a different trajectory, which is very unlikely, But even then, repairing American democracy is not just a question for the next president, but would be a generational project.

Host: And you talk about trust. And I think another aspect of this that we've not touched upon is actually communication and debate. You know, neighbors who are Democrats, for instance, who know that their next door neighbors voted for Trump, maybe have just agreed to not talk politics. To what extent is that actually hindering the kind of institutional democratic repairs you're talking about?

Johannes Thimm: We have to keep in mind that the majority of Americans still don't really care too much about politics. And in a sense, that's a good thing, because they are still somewhat immune to this grave polarization, to these cultural battles. They just want to live their lives. And looking from the outside, if you follow German media coverage, or even if you are part of the Washington bubble, you tend to exaggerate how pervasive this polarization is. So I do think there's still hope that there can be a unifying force in the country. It won't happen overnight. And there are a lot of preconditions. This is not a given, but it's a possibility that there can be a process of healing, so to speak, if you want to be...

Sascha Lohmann: Healing the body politic...

Johannes Thimm: ...That there can be a process of healing, of returning to a more civilized political discourse. But that's only if the people fight for it, if the majority of Americans get on board.

Host: Sascha, are you as optimistic as Johannes? I'm sensing a little bit of optimism in Johannes' response there, when it comes to, as he says, healing, and finding a way to enliven and really give some oxygen to democracy again.

Sascha Lohmann: Yeah, I mean, the healing could happen. And I think this other America that we don't really see right now, that is silenced, because it's not happening in Congress much. It's not in the White House, certainly. And it's also only partly in the courts. I think this America still has the potential to advance this idea enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, that all are created equal somehow, and life and the pursuit of happiness for all, right? But I mean, so far, we talked a lot about the obstacles, but I think the potential for healing is there. And it just needs to show up at the elections. And it also needs to, and I think Obama did this and tried to do it, it also needs to cope with these tendencies of backlash in society against emancipatory movements, right? I think this is like the central dilemma of how to advance a liberal society while taking everybody on board and not alienating one over the other.

Johannes Thimm: I would just add, I mean, the US has been through tough times before. I mean, the most obvious example is the Civil War. But even in the 1960s and 70s, the country was really polarized, as polarized as it is now. And we had really high political violence. And the country recovered from that. And there was a new era of progress after that. And this is absolutely not a given. I think we should not draw either conclusion from history. So we can't be sure that US democracy is done and over with. It might still recover, but we can't also draw the opposite conclusion. The fact that the US has always recovered from these crises before doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to recover again. So history is made by humans. And it really depends on how people behave and not just politicians, but society as a whole.

Host: Okay. So all eyes on the midterms, first of all, I'm guessing. Broadening out and finally, what does Europe need to do differently when it comes to America, when it comes to transatlantic relations? Should Europe and European policymakers and European leaders change their current strategy? Have they caught up with what's going on, Sascha?

Sascha Lohmann: Well, I think there are two sides to the equation. I think we talk a lot about one side, which is the material capability side becoming more autonomous in strategic action, military, economic. But there's also this other side, the immaterial side. I think the mental preconditions to really absorb what's happening in the United States and draw conclusions from it. And I think the title of Thomas Wolff's book, You Can't Go Home Again, actually aptly captures this thinking that I think needs to be more widespread among European policymakers that the transatlantic relationship and the transatlantic community, as we have come to know it, is kind of over and there needs to be something else. But I think this not only requires the material capabilities to act autonomously, but also the immaterial capabilities of realizing these changes and act accordingly.

Host: And do you think that policymakers, leaders, again, people in Europe are that far? Have they had that realization yet?

Sascha Lohmann: I mean, it's a huge task. People have come to be socialized in transatlantic relations, including me and Johannes, I think. We were part of the institutions. We studied in the United States. But I mean, for me, I learned to reflect and think critically about the United States, which is what we're doing right now. But I learned it there for the first time. So I think this immense potential to foster independent and critical thinking is still there, even with those elites that have been socialized into this transatlantic community as we know it. So I think there is also, as with the healing part for the political trends and system, there's also this potential for people here in Europe to actually act according to this new transatlantic relationship, I think.

Host: There's a little bit of optimism from Sascha as well, Johannes.

Johannes Thimm: Yeah, as Sascha mentioned, he and I have been socialized into this transatlantic community, if you want to call it that, as well. And we empathize with people who really cling to the old concept of good transatlantic relations and the U.S. as being a partner and being a centerpiece of European foreign policy. But I really do think this era is over, no matter what comes afterwards. One thing we hear a lot from our counterparts in German government is that they reassure us or reassure themselves that on the working level, the relations are still good and that they continue to be good. And I don't want to question that. And I don't think we should change that while it lasts. But I do think that is not something that we can rely on. And that's not an excuse to lean back and hope that things will turn out all right. But I do think Germany and Europe really need to do the homework. Everything that's being talked about in the public discourse in terms of becoming more strategically independent, more autonomous, developing own capabilities, but also ideas and policies really needs to happen. and we can't let up on that. The sense of urgency certainly needs to stay, no matter what the outcome of the next elections.

Host: Well, and observing European leaders over the past year, year and a half, we've seen, to a certain extent, fairly inconsistent approaches to Trump and fairly wishy-washy approaches at times. What would your advice be to leadership in Europe?

Johannes Thimm: Well, watching the approach of different world leaders to Trump, I can only draw the conclusion that the effort to appease him and to not anger him and to pretty much give in to all of his demands hasn't been very successful. I would argue that leaders like Brazil's President Lula or Canada's Prime Minister Carney have been more successful by standing up to Donald Trump than the ones who've basically tried not to provoke his ire. He tends to respect people that stand their ground and when it comes to Trump, appeasement is really not a strategy.

Host: Sascha?

Sascha Lohmann: Yeah, I think maybe to give you a concrete example, when the Trump administration leveled these allegations about the so-called censorship industrial complex and threatened to impose sanctions on actors that, for example, helped to implement the Digital Service Act to go against hate speech in Europe. I think, therefore, Europeans must be able to defend these actors that have been threatened with sanctions and this would require financial channels. This would require a lot of political will to support them and I think there are many other examples but here I think strategic autonomy is really concrete in terms of it's not only against the United States or with the United States or without the United States but it's really able to chart your own course and enforce your own laws in Europe.

Host: So if nothing else, the cage fight is a startling wake-up call rather than just another Trumpian quirk. We will no doubt return to the studio to continue our discussion but for today I'd like to thank our guests Sascha Lawman and Johannes Tim for their shared insight. You can find links to their latest work and publications in the podcast show notes and if you like what you hear you can subscribe to us in the usual places including Spotify and Apple. You can also keep up to date with the latest analyses from SWP on Blue Sky and on LinkedIn. Today's episode was brought to you by our editor Maya Dähne by me, your host and of course by our guests Johannes Thimm and Sascha Lohmann. Thank you for tuning in.