Six stories on Trump's inauguration day
Trump and his team plan to stop an invasion from Mexico and invade Panama. But they want to negotiate with Venezuela. Maybe.
I can’t complain about having nothing to write about. Today’s post is in the style of my usual Thursday newsletter so I can cover lots of different things. Please feel free to respond to this email with feedback, comments, and questions.
Near the end of the day, President Trump was asked about how his administration would manage relations with Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America. His comment: “We don’t need them…. They need us. Everybody needs us.”
In making that dismissive comment, Trump was probably thinking more about trade and tariffs than other issues - immigration, security, democracy, and infrastructure, all of which figured into other comments and actions during the day. But it does show how Trump views the region. “We don’t need them” is the simple four-word Trump doctrine on the rest of the Western Hemisphere. It goes against a bipartisan push for hemispheric integration that has gone on for decades.
It’s quite rare throughout history for US presidents to mention any foreign countries in their inaugural addresses. Few previous inaugural addresses mention Latin America or go into detail about any international relations. President James Monroe’s second inaugural address in 1821 is the major exception. Monroe (for whom the Doctrine is named) goes into detail about relations with the UK after the War of 1812 as well as relations with Europe in general, Spain, “the colonies in South America,” the Barbary pirates, and Indigenous groups in North America (which were considered other nations at the time). The address spends more time on foreign relations than domestic issues, though Monroe’s point throughout is the importance of remaining neutral in any foreign conflicts. Regarding Latin America, he praises how the US ports have remained open to ship visits from both Spain and the rebelling colonies during the independence wars. You can read it here.
The only other comparable mention I can find is President Buchanan’s inaugural address in 1857, which makes a brief attempt to justify the recently concluded war with Mexico that left the United States with additional territory. Buchanan, widely considered to be one of the worst presidents in US history, says the US never engages in territorial expansion via conflict (which is clearly incorrect and not how Mexico views it).
The fact that even Buchanan thinks that point is an important marker of US identity is one reason that Trump’s mentions of “manifest destiny” and “expanding our territory” during his inaugural, as well as his stated openness to using the military on the issues of taking territory in Greenland and Panama, are so striking. Previous US presidents may have been hypocrites or in denial about how the US expanded, but no president has ever said outright in their opening speech that the US would engage in territorial expansion by force during his term.
Trump’s inaugural address mentions the country of Panama six times, complaining that the US constructed the Canal and should not have given it away. He says the US private sector and Navy are being treated poorly. He criticizes China’s presence in the Canal Zone. And he concludes the section by saying, “We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.”
While Trump has made similar comments a few times during the transition (I wrote about it here), for that to be mentioned in the inaugural speech is jaw-dropping. Take it seriously.
When asked if US troops may be used against Mexico’s cartels, Trump responded, “Stranger things have happened.”
Trump issued an executive order naming “The Cartels” as well as Tren de Aragua and MS-13 as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The order requires that the designations be made in 14 days, meaning we’ll know in two weeks exactly which and how many of Mexico’s cartels as well as other groups are on the list.
This May 2013 document from the Obama White House explains the legal justification for the use of force including drone strikes against terrorist organizations. You’re going to want to read that if you want a better understanding of how the FTO designations can be applied in Mexico. It would not surprise me if the Trump administration decided this Obama-era document is a critical legal precedent for their upcoming actions.
“Invasion” is the word of the day for the Trump administration. It’s not just a rhetorical device to win votes. It is at the heart of their legal justifications for many of the executive actions on migration, asylum, and the use of the US military at the border.
It’s a word Trump has used for many years. I think many analysts, myself included, have ignored his comments about “invasion” or avoided addressing it because it’s absurd and wrong. There is not an invasion occurring at the US-Mexico border (as opposed to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which is a correct use of the term). Why would I waste time and space arguing against it and perhaps risk giving credibility to the non-debate in doing so?
In reading the executive orders issued yesterday, the term moved from campaign rhetoric to an actual policy of the United States government. Trump is taking actions to stop an invasion. I don’t know if Trump really believes there is an invasion occurring or if it’s just a useful framework for him, but it’s no longer an absurd term that analysts can avoid addressing. It’s part of the policy.
Tariffs. No tariffs. Tariffs. No tariffs. Mexico’s and Canada’s currencies jump and slide with every new rumor. There was no tariff announcement yesterday, which let some markets breathe a sign of relief. But then Trump informally commented that 25% tariffs would hit on February 1, which meant markets panicked again.
In yesterday’s newsletter, I predicted that Trump’s tariff policy is real and not a bluff. I am reconsidering some of my other predictions from yesterday, which, to be fair, I carefully hedged by stating I was unsure of how accurate they would be. I’m sticking with the tariff prediction. Big tariffs are coming.
Trump was clear on many issues yesterday, but there is no clear Venezuela policy. Or there are multiple competing Venezuela policies coming from different personnel. This is not an administration speaking with one voice on Venezuela.
Marco Rubio, the hawk on Venezuela, was confirmed by the US Senate. Rubio has made clear that he wants the Chevron license removed and views Maduro as an illegitimate narco-dictator.
Right before that Rubio vote was considered by the Senate, Ric Grenell tweeted out that he was in conversations with officials inside of Venezuela and that “diplomacy is back” and “talking is a tactic.” That is a bold contrarian statement given that Rubio, Claver-Carone, and others on the Trump team were so critical of the Biden administration’s negotiation attempts with the Maduro regime.
Earlier in the day, Diosdado Cabello, who has been the anti-US hawk within the Maduro crowd, made a public statement suggesting that a deal with the new Trump administration on accepting migrants was possible. If Cabello is giving a public thumbs up to a potential deal, it means that the other Chavistas are likely on board too. It’s not surprising that backchannel negotiations are happening. The fact those backchannel discussions became public on day one rather than at the six or twelve month mark was the surprising part.
Then, later in the night, Trump commented that the US would cut off all imports of Venezuelan oil, saying that the US doesn’t need it. This is in line with Trump’s remarks about the US not needing Latin America that opened this newsletter. Maduro is not going to cut a deal that loses his main source of revenue.
The one policy option nobody mentioned was military force. On its first day in office, the Trump administration is discussing military options against Mexico and Panama but not Venezuela.
Thanks for reading.