The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 270, January 24, 2025

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we provide analysis regarding the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th President of the United States and his first foreign policy-related executive orders, while also recapping our Thursday Zoom event panel discussion about the Gaza ceasefire deal and the prospects of successful implementation moving forward.

Editor: Bassam Tarbush

Inauguration of Trump as 47th U.S. President and His First Foreign Policy-Related Executive Orders

Following his inauguration, President Trump issued a slew of executive orders, including ones impacting U.S. foreign policy. (Photo from Getty Images)

This past Monday, January 20th, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States. After his inauguration, Trump signed an array of executive orders upon his return to the White House, which of course included actions that will have significant U.S. foreign policy implications. Among others of note, these consisted of executive orders to: withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accords and the World Health Organization (WHO), lift sanctions against violent Israeli settlers, rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, temporarily suspend all U.S. foreign assistance programs for 90 days pending reviews to determine whether they are aligned with “Trump policy goals,” and declare a national energy emergency to open up resource extraction. Trump also issued an executive order aimed at restricting visa-seekers and refugees from certain countries that the administration deems as ones with “identified security risks,” with the Department of Homeland Security due to report back within three months regarding whether or not resuming these refugee entries would be “in the interests of the United States.” This has elicited understandable concern from rights advocates, as some have pointed out that it undermines the United States’ role as a longstanding safe haven for asylum seekers fleeing persecution and repression. All told, many of President Trump’s first actions appear to be aligned with his proclaimed protectionist and isolationist foreign policy approach, and experts also anticipate a degree of unpredictability to it as well.

One of the most alarming foreign policy-related executive orders signed by President Trump shortly after his inauguration was the lifting of sanctions previously imposed by the Biden administration on more than 30 extremist Israeli settler groups and entities. While Israeli settler violence against Palestinians has been a reprehensible reality for decades, it has surged in recent years – particularly since the onset of the Gaza War back in October of 2023. With much of the world’s attention fixated on the heinous war crimes and human rights violations taking place in Gaza, concurrently, extremist Israeli settler violence in the illegally-occupied West Bank has been on the rise. As human rights groups often seek to draw attention to, this is routinely enabled and even aided by Israeli forces themselves. Thus, the fact that President Trump is removing these sanctions rather than conversely doubling down or adding to them in an effort to stamp out the behavior is very problematic and harmful. It ultimately damages the United States’ standing and credibility as a defender of human rights on the global stage, and runs counter to the values and principles that the country espouses to uphold.

During his first day back in office, President Trump also issued an executive order withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), in addition to another which will pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accords yet again. First, with regards to the WHO, various issue experts were quick to say that the move leaves the United States and other countries less safe from protection against infectious diseases and public-health threats. They argue that having the robust coordination of governments around the world, which would of course include a major global actor like the United States, is critical to efforts to combat public health crises. There is also the important matter of access to constantly evolving health-related information, guidance, and developments, something that the U.S. would lose should it end up withdrawing from the WHO. As such, this would make the United States increasingly vulnerable to public health threats from across the globe, and expand the likelihood that disease outbreaks become more widespread.

As for Trump’s decision to again pull the United States out of the Paris climate accords, to observers this illustrates the initiation of an aggressive agenda to roll back climate change policies and commitments to tackle the issue, while bolstering fossil fuel extraction and production. It also hinders the world’s ability to strive towards achieving set climate change objectives, and in doing so, risks further accelerating the impacts of global warming. Additionally, the withdrawal could negatively affect the United States by giving China and other economic competitors an advantage in gaining a foothold on the clean energy manufacturing market. As one commentator tried to outline, the United States should continue to show leadership on the international stage if it wants to have any say in how trillions of dollars in financial investments, policies, and decisions are made regarding climate change. In his first term, President Trump withdrew from the Paris accords, but Former President Biden rejoined them after winning the White House in 2020.

In addition to his immediate executive orders earlier this week, President Trump also recently re-designated the Houthis in Yemen as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). What is of most concern regarding this move, is the fact that it will exacerbate the already dire humanitarian conditions in the country. Under Biden back in January of last year, the Houthis had been labeled with a less severe designation, but now, Trump’s decision to reinstitute them as an FTO presents an obstacle to aid groups working in Yemen. The FTO designation means that anyone in the United States or abroad suspected of providing resources to the Houthis could be prosecuted under U.S. law. Due to this, in the past, human rights organizations had warned against the label, citing how it could prevent aid groups from operating in areas that are under Houthi control – which is where much of Yemen’s population lives. As rights advocates have been quick to point out, actions like this hurt the wrong people. While the Houthi leadership is largely insulated from shortages in food and other essential supplies, many Yemeni civilians are not and will be the ones to unfortunately suffer the largest negative consequences, especially those that depend on outside humanitarian aid to survive.

NIF Event – Gaza Ceasefire Deal and the Prospects of Success

On Thursday of this week, the National Interest Foundation (NIF) hosted a Zoom event panel discussion regarding the Gaza ceasefire deal that was recently reached last week and the prospects of successful implementation moving forward. The panel of speakers was comprised of: Dr. Annelle Sheline, a Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; Khaled Elgindy, a Visiting Scholar at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies; and Sam Husseini, an Independent Journalist. The event was moderated by Khaled Saffuri, President at the National Interest Foundation. Saffuri kicked off the discussion by remarking about how many have lamented that the ceasefire deal was reached and initiated much later than it should have been, resulting in many more needless civilian deaths and humanitarian suffering in Gaza. He outlined some of the main topics of discussion that the event sought to delve into, such as whether or not the Gaza ceasefire agreement would hold and how the ceasefire in Lebanon might affect the situation in Gaza.

Dr. Annelle Sheline spoke about her time working at the U.S. State Department. She commended the admirable work of journalists in Gaza, and the transparency that they have brought to the world’s understanding of what has actually been taking place there – most notably, the egregious Israeli war crimes and human rights violations. This has been much-needed and important due to the Biden administration’s opaque portrayal of the facts on the ground in Gaza. Sheline highlighted the wide array of discontent within the State Department regarding the administration’s Gaza policy, and how it was opposed for a variety of reasons like it being harmful to America’s reputation and interests, its moral bankruptcy, and the fact that it had a negative impact on the prospects of ensuring Israeli security. She discussed some of Former U.S. Secretary of State Blinken’s worst lies and actions related to Gaza, such as his refusal to apply the Leahy Law against Israeli forces despite overwhelming evidence of gross human rights abuses. Sheline pointed out that the pressure applied to Israeli officials to finally reach a ceasefire deal recently demonstrates the amount of leverage that the United States possesses should it choose to use it – but how this is something that the Biden administration continually failed to do effectively over the preceding 15 months. Regarding the prospects for successful implementation of the Gaza ceasefire deal, Sheline expressed that she has very little optimism that it will ultimately last.

Next, Khaled Elgindy remarked about how it is clear that this Gaza ceasefire deal has been on the table for the past seven months, but that regrettably, the Biden administration had been unable to secure it during this time because of a lack of pressure being applied against Israeli officials. He discussed some of President Trump’s motivations behind wanting to help secure a deal, including the optics of it and the perception that he is a “dealmaker” and a “peacemaker.” Elgindy argued that implementation of the agreement is going to be a major challenge. In recent days, Israeli officials have sought to emphasize that this is a temporary cessation of hostilities, leaving the door open for a resumption of the Gaza War. He also alluded to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu being the main obstacle to the securing of a deal, and how he needs the war to continue for his own personal and political survival. Analysts and experts across the board agree that the purported Israeli goal of “complete destruction of Hamas” is unattainable, and is merely being used by warmongers to try and justify endless conflict. Elgindy commented that it remains to be seen how Trump would respond to the potential resumption of hostilities in Gaza, and concluded by highlighting the tensions and weariness within the Trump camp regarding Israeli intentions and the U.S. possibly getting dragged into war in the Middle East on Israel’s behalf.

Sam Husseini delved into South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the direct orders issued by the court regarding Israel’s violatory actions. He spoke about the change in president at the ICJ due to the former head, judge Nawaf Salam, resigning from the position in order to become the new prime minister of Lebanon and this resulting in a pro-Israeli judge now heading the court – at least in the interim. Husseini proceeded to lay out some of the things that can be tangibly done to advocate in support of human rights, on top of using rights of free speech and protest to draw attention to ongoing abuses and injustices. He stated that people all over the world should be petitioning their governments to call for impactful actions like an arms embargo and economic sanctions against Israel in light of its blatant violations. Husseini concluded by stressing the importance of grassroots activism in support of Palestinian human rights persisting and not dissipating.

Prior to the Q&A session, Former U.S. Ambassador Theodore Kattouf noted that what has struck him the most is the number of young people that have come out and rallied in support of human rights and international law despite tremendous pushback – which has been very encouraging to see. The panelists agreed with this sentiment, and outlined the clear generational shift that we have seen regarding younger Americans’ views towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Former U.S. Congressman Nick Rahall provided his insight on why the governments in several Arab countries did not put pressure against Israel’s actions in either Gaza or Lebanon. He also expressed that what Israel did and got away with under the Biden administration was atrocious. Later, during the Q&A session, questions were posed regarding the nature of what Trump’s policies might be and some of the motivating factors behind this, as well as asking for comments from the panelists about reports that the transfer of citizens from Gaza to Indonesia was allegedly being considered. Dr. Sheline concluded the discussion by mentioning President Trump’s recent re-designation of the Houthis in Yemen as a foreign terrorist organization, and the widespread concern that this will worsen the humanitarian crisis there.

To watch the entire event on our YouTube page, please click here.