The reviews are in regarding Donald Trump’s latest foreign policy speech and they are not good. Here is a roundup of what experts and analysts are saying:
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Admiral James Stavridis agreed that Trump has no coherent foreign policy views.
Analysis: Making Sense of Donald Trump’s Disjointed Foreign Policy Pitch
NBC NEWS // BENJY SARLIN
Trump sought to clarify his worldview with a prepared speech in Youngstown, Ohio, on Monday after a week of battles over his claim that President Obama “founded ISIS” and was the “MVP” of the Islamist terror group. But setting aside the debate over that rhetoric, which he did not repeat in his speech, the national security framework he described was so contradictory and filled with so many obvious falsehoods that it’s virtually impossible to tell what he would do as president. . .But these arguments, while unremarkable enough on their own, say nothing about Trump’s instincts or how he would govern. That’s because Trump previously supported every single foreign policy decision he now decries. . . .The result is that the only thing we know about Trump is that he’s good at criticizing decisions by other presidents in hindsight. Unfortunately, this is not a very useful skill for the person tasked with making the decisions in the first place.
WASHINGTON POST // STEPHEN STROMBERG
Even when he is highly scripted, Donald Trump can’t seem to make a coherent point on foreign policy. For months, the Republican nominee’s statements on international affairs have been deeply disjointed. On one hand, he has promised to be a great friend to American allies. On the other, he has threatened to pull out of NATO and other decades-old strategic relationships based on the claim that the United States is being sucked dry by ungrateful “friends.” . . .Trump attempted Monday to show that he can think about the issues and prepare a serious policy address. Instead, he failed even at pretending to have done either of those things.
LA TIMES // EDITORIAL BOARD
But ideological litmus tests for immigrants and a national commission to study “radical Islam” could be catastrophically counterproductive. Requiring assent to a checklist of values would punish thoughts rather than deeds and might encourage newcomers to dissemble about their beliefs. A commission designed to expose radicals could bring back the days of blacklists and guilt by association. These are frightening ideas. It’s no surprise that they have been proposed by Donald Trump.
NEW YORK TIMES // EDITORIAL BOARD
Donald Trump’s speech on Monday was advertised as an attempt to redirect his campaign from a series of blunders to a more serious discussion of foreign policy, starting with combating global terrorism. As such, it marked another test of his readiness to lead. It did not go well. Far from coherent analysis of the threat of Islamic extremism and a plausible blueprint for action, the speech was a collection of confused and random thoughts that showed little understanding of the rise of the Islamic State and often conflicted with the historical record. Meanwhile, with terrorism as his central focus, Mr. Trump doubled down on the anti-refugee themes that have dominated his campaign, dressing them up as a national security issue. He proposed a new “extreme vetting” approach to immigration that would impose an ideological test on newcomers and undermine the very American values of tolerance and equal treatment that he said he wanted to encourage.
ASSOCIATED PRESS // JILL COLVIN
Donald Trump’s speech on foreign policy Monday focused in large part on his proposal to suspend immigration from dangerous parts of the world and impose a new system of “extreme vetting” that would subject applicants to questions about their personal ideology. “We should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people,” said Trump, proposing what he called an “ideological screening test.” . . .Trump didn’t offer many specifics in his speech, raising a number of questions about how he would implement his proposals.