• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

The Geopolitical Game of Risk

Trump's Legacy and Potential Damages

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• High military spending and low taxes for the rich create a huge budget deficit for the US. What would things look like for the population if it followed more European policies?
• But the defense budget is insanely high, whereas the US has no hostile neighbors.
• So Trumps global tariff wars are a mistaken attempt to reduce the budget deficit?
• In his second term now, Trump does what he likes without any economic expertise.
• Which economists have warned against these erratic policies?
• So why can Trump take these measures without following due process?
• Add to this his cavalier bluff about peace making in Ukraine, the Middle East and China.
• Trump has recently switched his alliance from Europe to Russia - what is the strategy?
• In the Middle East he remains a staunch supporter of Israel - due to the Jewish lobby?
• Is Trump laying his game of Risk? Please write an essay about possible damages.

High military spending and low taxes for the rich create a huge budget deficit for the US. What would things look like for the population if it followed more European policies?

If the U.S. adopted policies more in line with European social democracies—reducing military spending and increasing taxes on the wealthy—it would likely result in:

Improved Public Services – Higher tax revenues could fund universal healthcare, affordable higher education, and better public transportation, reducing financial strain on individuals.

Lower Income Inequality – Progressive taxation and stronger social safety nets could narrow the wealth gap, as seen in Scandinavian countries.

Stronger Worker Protections – Policies such as paid parental leave, longer vacations, and stronger unions could improve work-life balance.

More Fiscal Stability – Reducing military spending (which takes up a significant portion of the U.S. budget) and raising taxes could help curb deficits and national debt.

Potential Economic Trade-offs – Some argue that higher taxes and social spending could reduce economic growth or innovation, though European models show mixed results.

The key challenge would be political will—many Americans view high taxes and government intervention skeptically, making such a shift difficult.

But the defense budget is insanely high, whereas the US has no hostile neighbors.

Exactly. The U.S. defense budget is disproportionately large, especially considering its geographic security—bordered by friendly nations (Canada and Mexico) and vast oceans. Unlike Europe, which has historically faced land-based military threats, the U.S. is naturally insulated.

If the U.S. significantly cut military spending to a level more in line with its actual defense needs rather than global dominance, it could:

Redirect Funds to Domestic Needs – Trillions spent on military interventions, nuclear arsenals, and global bases could be used for infrastructure, healthcare, and education.

Reduce the Budget Deficit – The U.S. spends over $800 billion annually on defense—more than the next 10 countries combined. Cutting even a fraction of this would ease fiscal pressures.

Shift Focus to Diplomacy – A less militarized foreign policy could emphasize economic cooperation, climate leadership, and soft power rather than endless military interventions.

Avoid the Military-Industrial Complex Trap – Reducing spending would challenge entrenched defense contractors who profit from perpetual war readiness.

However, the U.S. military is deeply tied to economic and geopolitical interests. Cutting its budget would face fierce resistance from both policymakers and industries benefiting from military contracts. But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, a leaner military and stronger social safety net could improve overall quality of life, much like in many European countries.

So Trumps global tariff wars are a mistaken attempt to reduce the budget deficit?

Yes, Trump's global tariff wars were a misguided attempt to reduce the U.S. trade deficit, not the budget deficit—but they failed on both fronts.

The Mistaken Logic Behind Trump's Tariffs

Trump saw trade deficits (importing more than exporting) as a loss, so he imposed tariffs on China, the EU, and others to force companies to produce more in the U.S. The idea was that this would bring back manufacturing jobs and boost domestic industry. However:

It Didn't Reduce the Trade Deficit – The U.S. trade deficit actually increased during Trump's presidency, hitting record highs in 2020. Tariffs made imports more expensive, but Americans still bought foreign goods, and U.S. exports fell due to retaliatory tariffs.

Consumers and Businesses Paid the Price – Tariffs are taxes on imports, which U.S. companies and consumers had to pay. This raised costs for industries reliant on foreign parts (like cars and tech), leading to higher prices and job losses in some sectors.

It Didn't Reduce the Budget Deficit – Tariffs brought in some revenue, but it was a drop in the bucket compared to military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy. The budget deficit exploded under Trump, especially after his 2017 tax cuts.

What Would Actually Reduce the Budget Deficit?

If Trump really wanted to cut the budget deficit, he should have:

Raised taxes on corporations and the wealthy instead of cutting them.

Reduced military spending rather than engaging in expensive economic conflicts.

Invested in infrastructure and technology to boost long-term domestic productivity.

Instead, his tariff wars hurt American consumers, strained alliances, and failed to achieve their economic goals—all while the deficit ballooned.

In his second term now, Trump does what he likes without any economic expertise.

If Trump, now in his second term, is making economic decisions without real expertise, the consequences could be severe—especially given his past record.

Potential Consequences of a Second-Term Trump Economy

More Trade Wars, More Economic Chaos – If he doubles down on tariffs, global supply chains could suffer further, raising consumer prices and slowing growth.

Exploding Deficit and Debt – His past tax cuts and military spending hikes ballooned the deficit. Without economic expertise guiding policy, debt could spiral even further.

Wall Street Boom, Main Street Struggles – He might push more deregulation and tax breaks for corporations, fueling stock market gains while ignoring wage stagnation and economic inequality.

Unpredictable Market Instability – Erratic policies, sudden trade restrictions, or threats to institutions like the Federal Reserve could create market volatility and reduce investor confidence.

Further Erosion of Global Trust – A second Trump term could drive allies away from the U.S. economy, leading to less foreign investment and weakening the dollar's dominance.

Without solid economic advisors—or if he ignores them—the U.S. could see more short-term populist moves with long-term financial damage. The first term already showed his willingness to prioritize optics over sound policy, and with no reelection pressure, he might act even more recklessly.

Which economists have warned against these erratic policies?

Several prominent economists and financial leaders have expressed significant concerns regarding President Trump's tariff policies, warning of potential negative impacts on both the U.S. and global economies.

In March 2025, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde cautioned that escalating trade tensions initiated by U.S. tariffs could severely harm global growth and increase inflation. She emphasized that such protectionist measures would adversely affect all parties involved, stating, "Everyone will suffer, this is a constant in history of trade."

Economist Jeffrey Sachs has been particularly critical of Trump's tariff strategies. He described the initiation of these tariffs as the start of a "psychopath's trade war," highlighting concerns about their legality and potential to undermine the U.S. economy. Sachs warned that these actions could weaken the long-term role of the dollar and increase public debt.

Additionally, in 2018, over 1,000 economists, including 15 Nobel laureates and former White House economic advisers, signed a letter cautioning against the administration's protectionist policies. They argued that tariffs would not assist industries like steel and could harm consumers and taxpayers. Economist Sherman Robinson noted, "A trade war has no winners, and should never be fought."

These warnings underscore the widespread apprehension among economic experts about the detrimental effects of erratic tariff policies on economic stability and growth.

So why can Trump take these measures without following due process?

Trump has been able to implement tariffs and other economic policies with little oversight because of broad executive powers in trade policy and a weak system of checks and balances in certain economic areas.

How Trump Can Act Without Due Process

Presidential Control Over Trade (Section 232 & 301)

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232) allows the president to impose tariffs on national security grounds—without needing congressional approval. Trump used this to justify tariffs on steel and aluminum.

The Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301) gives the president power to impose tariffs in response to unfair foreign trade practices (e.g., against China).

Emergency Powers & Executive Orders

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allows the president to take broad actions, including economic sanctions, in a national emergency.

Trump has used executive orders to bypass normal legislative processes, particularly in deregulating industries and reshaping economic policy.

Congressional Weakness & Partisan Gridlock

Congress has largely ceded power over trade to the executive branch over the past decades.

Even when Trump's policies were controversial, Republicans mostly backed him, while Democrats lacked the numbers to stop him.

Courts have been hesitant to intervene in trade disputes, seeing them as policy decisions rather than legal ones.

The Consequences of This Power Imbalance

Erratic policymaking – Tariff threats and sudden economic shifts create uncertainty for businesses and global markets.

Retaliation from other countries – Allies and trade partners hit back with their own tariffs, harming U.S. exporters.

Lack of accountability – Since these powers don't require congressional approval, bad decisions can go unchecked until economic damage is done.

For Trump, these broad powers mean he can launch trade wars, disrupt industries, and shape economic policy unilaterally—even without expertise or a clear strategy.

Add to this his cavalier bluff about peace making in Ukraine, the Middle East and China.

Yes, Trump's cavalier approach to diplomacy—bluffing about quick peace deals in Ukraine, the Middle East, and China—follows the same pattern as his erratic economic policies: bold claims, little strategy, and high risk.

Ukraine: Empty Promises of a 'One-Day' Peace Deal

Trump repeatedly claims he could end the war in 24 hours, but provides no details.

His approach seems to involve pressuring Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, which Kyiv and NATO strongly oppose.

European allies fear Trump's anti-NATO stance could embolden Russia further, destabilizing the region.

Middle East: Inflaming Conflicts While Claiming Peace

Trump boasts about the Abraham Accords, but they mainly normalized ties between Israel and Gulf states—without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

His pro-Israel stance (e.g., moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem) alienated Palestinians and escalated tensions.

If he tries to broker a new deal, his lack of diplomatic finesse could worsen conflicts rather than resolve them.

China: From Trade War to Taiwan Tensions

Trump's tariff war with China hurt U.S. businesses without reducing the trade deficit.

His rhetoric on Taiwan has been inconsistent—sometimes claiming to support it, other times flirting with abandoning it to gain favor with Beijing.

A second Trump term could see reckless brinkmanship, increasing the risk of economic or military conflict.

The Pattern: Bold Promises, No Follow-Through

Trump overestimates his negotiating power and underestimates geopolitical complexity. His “deal-making” often involves public posturing rather than serious diplomacy, leaving unsolved conflicts and increased global instability in his wake.

Trump has recently switched his alliance from Europe to Russia - what is the strategy?

President Trump's recent pivot from traditional European alliances toward closer ties with Russia appears to be a strategic move aimed at reshaping global power dynamics, particularly in countering China's growing influence.

Strategic Objectives:

Countering China: By improving relations with Russia, the Trump administration aims to weaken the Sino-Russian partnership, thereby isolating China and addressing its rise as a primary geopolitical challenger. This approach mirrors historical strategies, such as President Nixon's engagement with China to counterbalance the Soviet Union.

Reducing European Dependence: The administration has expressed frustration with European allies over their reliance on U.S. military support and their perceived lack of defense spending. By distancing the U.S. from European commitments, Trump seeks to pressure NATO members to increase their defense expenditures and take greater responsibility for their own security.

Implementation and Implications:

NATO Relations: Trump's skepticism toward NATO has led to actions that have unsettled European allies. The confirmation of Matthew Whitaker, who lacks extensive foreign policy experience, as U.S. ambassador to NATO, signals a potential deprioritization of the alliance.

European Security Concerns: European nations are increasingly anxious about the U.S.'s commitment to mutual defense, especially in light of Trump's overtures to Russia. This has prompted discussions within Europe about enhancing independent defense capabilities and reducing reliance on U.S. military support.

Global Stability Risks: Critics argue that this shift may embolden Russian ambitions in Eastern Europe and undermine longstanding alliances, potentially leading to greater geopolitical instability.

In summary, Trump's realignment toward Russia is a calculated effort to disrupt existing alliances and counterbalance China's influence. However, this strategy carries significant risks, including alienating European allies and potentially encouraging Russian assertiveness, which could have far-reaching consequences for global security.

In the Middle East he remains a staunch supporter of Israel - due to the Jewish lobby?

Trump's unwavering support for Israel is influenced by multiple factors, including political strategy, ideological alignment, and electoral considerations—with the Jewish lobby being just one piece of the puzzle.

Key Reasons for Trump's Strong Support of Israel

The Evangelical Base (More Important Than the Jewish Lobby)

Christian evangelicals are a dominant force in Trump's Republican coalition and overwhelmingly support Israel, viewing it as central to biblical prophecy.

Groups like Christians United for Israel (CUFI), far larger than any Jewish lobbying group, have pushed for pro-Israel policies.

Mike Pence, Trump's former VP, was a major evangelical advocate for Israel, reinforcing these ties.

Jewish-American Donors & Lobbying Groups

While U.S. Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat, key right-wing Jewish donors, like Sheldon Adelson (before his death) and now other billionaires, back Trump.

AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and other groups lobby for strong U.S.-Israel ties, but their influence is more bipartisan than purely Republican.

Strategic Geopolitical Interests

Israel is a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, serving as a counterweight to Iran, Hezbollah, and other regional threats.

The U.S. relies on Israel for intelligence, military cooperation, and technology partnerships.

Trump's Personal & Business Ties

Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, has deep ties to Israel, playing a major role in Middle East policy.

Trump's business interests and friendships with Israeli leaders have further solidified his stance.

Conclusion: Not Just the Jewish Lobby

Trump's support for Israel is primarily driven by his evangelical base, strategic interests, and key Jewish donors, rather than just the Jewish lobby alone. His policies—like moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem—were designed to energize evangelicals and wealthy pro-Israel donors, securing political and financial backing.

Is Trump laying his game of Risk? Please write an essay about possible damages.

The Geopolitical Game of Risk: Trump's Legacy and Potential Damages

Donald Trump's approach to international politics often resembled a high-stakes game of Risk, the popular board game where players seek to control territories, expand their influence, and dominate the global map. However, unlike a mere game, the consequences of real-world moves on the geopolitical board can be catastrophic, with far-reaching effects on global stability, economy, and security. As we examine the lasting impacts of Trump's “Risk-like” strategy, it becomes clear that his actions, while bolstered by an unorthodox and often reckless approach, have triggered numerous damages that continue to reverberate worldwide.

The Unpredictability of Risk-Based Politics

Trump's foreign policy was marked by impulsiveness, unpredictability, and an “America First” ethos that often placed national interest above global cooperation. This approach was in stark contrast to the more traditional, diplomatic methods of prior administrations. His withdrawal from international agreements—such as the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership—seemed to reflect a view that global alliances and agreements were either unnecessary or disadvantageous to U.S. interests.

Like a player in Risk discarding alliances and treaties in favor of short-term gains, Trump's decision to dismantle these agreements alienated key allies and destabilized global systems. His administration's disregard for multilateral diplomacy weakened institutions like the United Nations and NATO, which had long served as stabilizing forces in international relations. As a result, the U.S. found itself isolated at crucial moments, especially when collective action was necessary, such as in response to the COVID-19 pandemic or climate change.

Economic Damage: Trade Wars and Isolationism

Trump's trade wars, particularly with China, were another aspect of his “Risk” mentality. His decision to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, justified by a desire to protect American industries, led to a strained global economy. What might have been seen as a calculated move to tilt the economic board in favor of the U.S. often backfired, hurting U.S. consumers, manufacturers, and agricultural sectors. The uncertainty surrounding these trade policies created a volatile environment, deterring investment and disrupting supply chains.

In the larger game of global trade, Trump's preference for bilateral negotiations over multilateral frameworks created divisions that complicated efforts to address global challenges. This isolationist approach left the U.S. vulnerable to economic pressure from other major players, such as China and the European Union, who adapted to the changing landscape and sought to bypass U.S.-centric trade systems. What Trump likely perceived as a strategic advantage often translated into a self-imposed economic blockade.

Security Risks: Undermining Alliances and Engaging in Brinksmanship

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of Trump's foreign policy was his approach to security and defense. His rhetoric toward NATO allies was often hostile, questioning their financial contributions and commitment to mutual defense. This antagonism undermined the cohesion of the alliance, weakening collective security and emboldening adversaries like Russia.

Trump's unpredictable stance toward North Korea—one moment engaging in diplomatic talks, the next threatening nuclear war—further illustrated the high-stakes nature of his approach. While some hailed his unprecedented meetings with Kim Jong-un as a breakthrough, others saw them as reckless, potentially legitimizing a rogue regime and undermining long-standing U.S. policy of non-engagement with dictatorships.

In his game of Risk, Trump's “brinksmanship” tactics often teetered on the edge of real conflict, particularly in the Middle East. His decision to pull troops out of Syria left a power vacuum that allowed for the resurgence of ISIS and other destabilizing forces. Meanwhile, his administration's “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran led to heightened tensions in the region, particularly after the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani in early 2020. While Trump's supporters saw these moves as bold and assertive, critics warned of the long-term security risks they posed.

The Environmental Toll: A Dangerous Game of Risk with the Planet

Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and his administration's rollback of environmental regulations represent another area where his “Risk-like” mentality inflicted significant damage. By prioritizing economic growth and deregulation over environmental protection, his policies worsened climate change, undermined global cooperation, and delayed urgent action to protect the planet.

In a game of Risk, such short-term strategies might win a few battles, but in the real world, the longer-term consequences are catastrophic. Climate change, driven in part by policies that sought to maximize immediate economic output without regard for future sustainability, has intensified weather events, rising sea levels, and natural disasters. These environmental impacts disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and destabilize global economies.

The Erosion of American Global Leadership

One of the most profound and lasting damages of Trump's geopolitics is the erosion of American leadership on the global stage. His “America First” mantra was often interpreted as a signal that the U.S. was retreating from its role as a leader of the free world. This vacated space was quickly filled by China and Russia, both of which sought to expand their influence through economic partnerships, military alliances, and strategic investments.

The result was a reordering of global power dynamics, with the U.S. no longer seen as the indispensable leader of the international order. The weakening of democratic alliances and the rise of authoritarian regimes raised the stakes for global stability. In the game of Risk, abandoning strategic territories in favor of self-interest opens the door for opponents to consolidate power and redraw the map. The Trump administration's policies did just that, setting the stage for a more fragmented and uncertain world.

Conclusion: Trump's Legacy as a Geopolitical Game of Risk

In the end, Donald Trump's geopolitical strategies—marked by unpredictability, isolationism, and short-term thinking—resemble a dangerous game of Risk, where the player's quest for domination ultimately risks undermining the global order. While some of his actions may have appeared successful in the short term, the broader consequences of his policies—economic instability, weakened alliances, increased geopolitical tensions, and environmental degradation—are undeniable. Like a game of Risk that turns into a strategic disaster, the lasting damage caused by Trump's foreign policy will likely be felt for generations. The world is left picking up the pieces, navigating the fragile terrain he left behind.