IGP Working Roundtable with Wendy Sherman and Bruce Stokes Examines Shifting American Attitudes Toward Foreign Policy

Two weeks after the 2024 US presidential election, former US Deputy Secretary of State and IGP Carnegie Distinguished Fellow Wendy Sherman hosted a working roundtable sponsored by SIPA’s Institute of Global Politics to examine the shifting landscape of American public opinion on foreign policy. The November 19 discussion covered a range of topics, from growing isolationism and fears that the United States is a declining power to the foreign policy implications and global challenges that lie ahead for the next administration.

Sherman, an IGP Carnegie Distinguished Fellow who served under three presidents and five secretaries of state in her long career as a diplomat, was joined for the discussion by Bruce Stokes, former director of global economic attitudes at Pew Research Center and a visiting senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund. Sherman and Stokes asked students attending the roundtable to prepare for an interactive session by researching and preparing to discuss President-elect Donald Trump’s stated foreign policy goals, how they might be executed, and the challenges the administration may face in pursuing these goals. Students were instructed to use a variety of sources, from campaign principals and surrogates to written material provided or endorsed by the campaign.

Image

Stokes launched the discussion by presenting polling data on Americans’ changing attitudes in the run-up to the election, which showed a marked decline in the public’s perception of the United States’ global stature – a trend he attributed to the rise of other powers like China, Japan, and Europe. “This has contributed to a significant shift within the Republican party from internationalism to isolationism,” Stokes noted, with only four in ten supporters of Donald Trump backing international cooperation with allies, compared to eight in ten Harris supporters. The discussion identified potential drivers for this isolationist shift, including the public desire for a strong, decisive leader to address perceived global chaos. “If there’s a perception that the world was in disorder, Trump’s simple campaign message of ‘they broke it, I’ll fix it,’ struck a chord with many voters,” Stokes said.

Students shared their thoughts on the polling data and isolationist sentiments within the electorate. One participant observed that “there’s a resentment that America has unfairly shouldered the vast majority of the burden of global security over the past several decades,” leading to a lack of trust in alliances. Another student highlighted the challenge of communicating the benefits of international cooperation to a public that may not feel directly served by these partnerships. “There’s a privilege living in the US, being able to say that these alliances don’t serve us, we don’t need them as much as other countries do,” she said.

The discussion then turned to public opinion on specific international issues. Stokes noted that views of Russia and China have significantly worsened, as evidenced by voters - by a margin of two-to-one - expressing fatigue with the war in Ukraine and openness to Trump negotiating an end to the conflict with Putin. Stokes added that three times as many Republicans backed decreasing or ending NATO commitment compared to Democrats, saying that although he didn’t believe Trump would pull out of the alliance, he may threaten to withhold NATO funding to leverage member states to increase their defense spending.

Stokes presented data that showed concerns about climate change have waned significantly, especially among voters who do not believe in government action. Sherman said she thought Trump’s investment in the UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties would be zero, telling students, “If you all want to change the data that Bruce showed you of the interest in climate change, you’re gonna have to do a lot of work because it isn’t where the American public is, and that’s appalling but real.”

The final portion of the conversation addressed potential Trump administration policies. Students predicted a range of actions, such as reducing funding for Ukraine, stepping back from commitments to Taiwan, increasing tariffs on Europe, and pressuring allies to contribute more to their defense budgets. Sherman spoke about Trump’s cabinet appointments and promises to “upend the system,” discussing claims he would pursue mass deportations, use the military to enforce immigration policies, and take a hardline stance against countries like China and Iran.

“That’s easier said than done,” Sherman said about mass deportation, noting significant logistical hurdles standing in the way of many of Trump’s stated goals. She stressed questions about where the government would detain immigrants before deportation and which countries would or would not take them back. “I think the reality is he will indeed try to use the military and perhaps use private facilities to detain people, but I don’t think he’ll be able to deport 11 million or 15 million people,” Sherman said.

She also highlighted a recurring theme throughout the discussion: the tension between Trump’s isolationist tendencies and his desire to project strength on the global stage. Students debated how he might balance these conflicting impulses, particularly regarding issues like funding for Ukraine and US commitments to allies like Japan and South Korea. 

Sherman ended the roundtable by discussing the deterrence of adversaries like North Korea and Russia and emphasizing the need for new strategies in the face of rapidly emerging technologies like AI. She urged students to rethink the question: “What does deterrence mean in this world?” She asked, “Can you deter North Korea in any way, shape or form? Can you deter Vladimir Putin in any way, shape or form? And if you can’t, then what do you do?”