President Donald Trump departs after speaking about the Iran war from the Cross Hall of the White House on Wednesday, April 1, 2026, in Washington. Alex Brandon/Pool via REUTERS
President Donald Trump’s administration is “falling apart,” a conservative wrote in the headline of his recent editorial — and he is not the only expert to reach that conclusion.
“President Trump seems poised to throw away the achievements he has made,” wrote Elliott Abrams, a Republican foreign policy official who represented Trump in both Venezuela and Iran during his first term, in an editorial for National Review. He previously praised Trump for invading Iran to reduce their threat to global security, taking down the Venezuelan regime and increasing pressure on Cuba. Yet he added that Trump has also failed to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s ongoing threat to Taiwan.
“In Venezuela, he seems completely comfortable with a Maduro regime without Maduro; every other thug and thief remains in place, hundreds of political prisoners continue to rot away, and Trump never utters the word ‘democracy’ or imposes any political demands on Delcy Rodríguez,” Abrams wrote. “When will there be an election? In Cuba, which must lie close to Secretary Marco Rubio’s heart, the outcome is in doubt: Will negotiations with Raúl Castro’s grandson produce real change? Trump has the chance in the two and a half years that remain of his time in power to leave the Western Hemisphere without a single regime hostile to the United States for the first time since 1959 (assuming that if Cuba and Venezuela are liberated, Nicaragua will not survive as a lone Marxist redoubt). That would be a tremendous and historic achievement for Trump — but he seems unaware that it works only if decapitation is followed by freedom rather than more pliable cronies.”
He added that Trump seems to disregard the risk of American national and economic security if China conquers Taiwan, adding that his coldness to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and obvious preference for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin “cannot be explained in terms of U.S. national security interests.” Similarly, Abrams characterized Trump’s deliberate antagonism toward NATO as “incomprehensible to previous Republican presidents, including Eisenhower and Reagan” Likewise “one of the most committed NATO allies, Denmark, has been threatened with the use of military force over Greenland, even as just about every stated goal regarding Greenland is obviously achievable through negotiations.”
Abrams speculated that Trump’s foreign policy is either guided by the “great leader” theory, in which the strongest powers like China, America and Russia should be able to divide up the world among themselves, or by the concept of “realpolitik” in which foreign policy is solely guided by practical considerations without regard to morality. Yet because both of those approaches would still theoretically advance America’s self-interest, Abrams said that Trump is failing on either account.
“It treats every country as a black box — an empty vessel with one man at the top,” Abrams wrote. “The Chinese people or Russian people simply do not exist in this approach — nor, as we will see in a moment, do Iranians. Only Xi, and Putin, and Delcy Rodríguez, and others like them do. That we may have common interests today with Russians who want to end the Ukraine war, or Venezuelans who want democracy, or Iranians who want a new, democratic, Western-style government does not seem to enter Trump’s mind or his policies.”
He added, “His kind of realism tells him to deal with those in power and forget about the populace. In the short run, that most often works. In the medium run, it sacrifices opportunities that can change world politics and undermines America’s claim to stand for democracy. Trump seems content to celebrate the 250th anniversary of Americans’ demand for popular sovereignty by ignoring that demand by any other people.”
Overall Trump’s lack of foreign policy savvy, the Iran expert explained, can account for how he has been seemingly backed into a corner in that war.
“Today, Trump is in a tight corner,” Abrams wrote. “He clearly does not wish to return to full-on conflict. Equally, he does not wish to agree to a deal that is reminiscent of Barack Obama’s JCPOA and will produce rounds of mockery from Democrats who remember how harshly he denounced that agreement. So the stalemate goes on, damaging every economy reliant on Gulf sources for petroleum products, including fertilizer as well as gasoline and diesel, and producing U.S. gasoline prices that threaten Republicans in November. Now, Trump has linked Lebanon to the Iran talks and tried to constrain Israeli attacks there because they may upset the Iran negotiations — linkage that is a huge Iranian victory.”
After listing Trump’s debacles with foreign policy personnel like FBI Director Kash Patel and DNI appointee Bill Pulte, Abrams speculated that all of this will cost Trump politically.
“The loyalty of congressional Republicans is being tested by Trump’s solipsism, elevating personal fealty over party-building, and it will be tested more if Republicans lose the House and perhaps the Senate in November," Abrams wrote. "... Second terms are almost always harder, and Donald Trump’s way of governing will exacerbate the troubles. He can turn that around, but hiring more unqualified loyalists and placing allegiance to himself above principle and competence will make that a lot harder.”