On climate change, immigration, federal states can oppose Trump’s ‘America First’
The Trump administration’s often rejectionist ‘America First’ approach to the rest of the world has given a new urgency for federal states and big cities in the US to strengthen ties with foreign governments, on issues like tackling climate changecolumns Updated: Jul 13, 2017 16:31 IST
A new study from Pew Research offers unsurprising news that many countries have a low opinion of Donald Trump. This survey of 37 countries found the percentage of those with confidence in the United States president has fallen from 64% at the end of the Obama presidency to just 22% under Trump. Some 62% says Trump is “dangerous”, and 74% have “no confidence” in him. Fewer than one in three support his bid to block citizens of some majority-Muslim countries from entering the US. Fewer than one in five approve of his trade and climate policies. The fall is steepest among some close US allies. From 2015 to 2017, the percentage of those with “confidence in the US president to do the right thing regarding world affairs” fell from 66 to 24% in Japan, 76 to 22% in Canada, 83 to 14% in France, and 73 to 11% in Germany.
Yet, officials in other countries know they can’t simply ignore or isolate Washington. The US is still the only country that can extend political, economic, and military influence into every region of the world. There are still a host of international problems and challenges that demand US cooperation, if not leadership. The good news for those who want more from the US is its decentralised federal system. Much power lies with state governors and big city mayors to enact and enforce laws that don’t exist at the federal level, even when these laws conflict with the president’s priorities. The most dramatic conflict between the national Republican Party, which now controls the White House and both houses of Congress, and local-level politicians is over immigration policy.
Trump has tried, so far unsuccessfully, to impose a ban on immigration from several majority-Muslim countries. But years ago, many local governments established ‘sanctuary’ status for illegal immigrants, and that process continues. ‘Sanctuary cities’ refuse to cooperate with federal immigration laws and bar local police from questioning an individual’s immigration status. According to The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit that advocates a more restrictive immigration policy, about 300 cities, counties or US states have some form of sanctuary policy. On same-sex marriage, legalisation of drugs, and even voting rights, laws vary considerably from state to state.
US states, even its largest cities, have real economic heft. California’s economy is larger than France’s or India’s. Texas is larger than Canada or South Korea. New York state is larger than Russia or Mexico. The state of Georgia’s economy is larger than Nigeria’s, Africa’s largest. Los Angeles is larger than Turkey, and Chicago is larger than Sweden. There’s a wide variety of attitudes across US states toward Trump and public demand within some to establish independent foreign policies. Mayors and governors, particularly in states where Trump is deeply unpopular, can score political points by defying him and pursuing their own agendas. They can also benefit their states and cities by attracting more investment, more foreign students, and more tourism.
No issue better illustrates the power of US states to set their own agendas than climate change. Here is a ‘problem without borders’ that can’t be addressed without cooperation from the US, which remains the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses after China. A few days after Trump withdrew US support from the Paris accord on climate, China’s President Xi Jinping welcomed California governor Jerry Brown into the Great Hall of the People with the sort of pomp traditionally reserved for visiting heads of state. The two leaders then discussed climate policy. “California’s leading, China’s leading,” Brown declared during a news conference covered extensively by China’s state-controlled media.
California has established a ‘cap and trade market’ that allows companies to buy and sell allowances on greenhouse gas emissions, a policy that finds little support at the federal level. Brown, who has promised to set ambitious emissions targets in California whatever Trump says, then signed agreements on clean energy technological development with local Chinese officials.
Canada, far more dependent on the US economy than China, is adopting a similar approach to courting local US officials. Early efforts to court Trump stalled when the president began complaining about unfair Canadian trade practices. Without needlessly provoking the US president, officials in Justin Trudeau’s government have since begun building on already close ties between Canadian provinces and US states.
In fact, the day after Trump explained his decision to withdraw from the Paris accord with a reminder that he “was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris”, Canada’s transport minister held a meeting on climate change policy with the mayor of Pittsburgh. Ontario will soon join Quebec in a cap-and-trade partnership with California. Canada’s federal government is also building relationships with officials in Florida, Texas, Michigan, New York and other states. “The United States is bigger than the [Trump] administration,” said Canada’s environment minister recently. She’s right.
There’s nothing new, of course, about other governments, particularly US allies, forging political and commercial relations with US states and cities. But the Trump administration’s ‘America First’, often rejectionist, approach to the rest of the world has given these ties new urgency. The US president has considerable power, particularly on foreign policy. But more governments are discovering the potential benefits of using the decentralised structure of the US to get what they want. And they’ll find a growing number of US governors and mayors waiting to embrace them.
Ian Bremmer is president, Eurasia Group and author of Superpower: Three Choices for America’s Role in the World
The views expressed are personal