The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 276, March 7, 2025

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we examine how Israel has elicited widespread condemnation for its blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza, provide analysis regarding the fallout from the Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy Oval Office clash, and delve into the president’s speech to Congress amid trade war escalations and news of unprecedented U.S.-Hamas direct talks.

Editor: Bassam Tarbush

Israel Elicits Widespread Condemnation for Its Blockade of Humanitarian Aid into Gaza

This week, Israel has faced large-scale criticism for its decision to block the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Rights groups and state officials were quick to condemn the move, highlighting how it is a deeply troubling violation of international law which also threatens to upend the prospects of sustaining the ceasefire in Gaza. As many pointed out, humanitarian aid is a fundamental right for civilians in war zones, with no exceptions, and parties to a conflict are legally obligated to facilitate the delivery of essential aid to those in need. By stopping the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war – something that it is again being accused of engaging in, and not for the first time. Israel’s decision to block aid was coordinated with the Trump administration, and thus rights advocates have noted that the U.S. and Trump officials are also complicit in the siege and the banning of entry of food, medicine, and other essential aid to Gaza. All of this comes as uncertainty looms over the Gaza ceasefire deal, and with aid agencies warning that Israel’s recent action will only serve to exacerbate the already dire humanitarian crisis amid a period when relief efforts are greatly needed in order to alleviate the devastating impact of more than 15 months of war.

Humanitarian organizations have cautioned that the cutoff of aid risks plunging civilians back into despair and offsetting the positive gains and momentum that have been seen during the past six weeks since the implementation of the Gaza ceasefire agreement. In this time, every day that food and medicine were allowed to reach those in need, lives have been saved. Throughout the course of the Gaza War, Israel was regularly criticized by United Nations agencies and aid groups for failing to facilitate enough humanitarian aid into the besieged territory, and as a result, Israel’s recent move has been described as a mere return to this. Back in late November, the International Criminal Court (ICC) expressed that there was reason to believe that Israel had used starvation as a method of warfare when it issued its arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Additionally, South Africa’s ongoing genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) includes evidence documenting this as a core theme of its filings as well. Thus, various observers have conveyed that with its latest decision to block the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, Israel is resuming its war crime starvation tactic which brought about both the ICC and ICJ charges to begin with.

The situation in Gaza was already grim for the vast majority of its inhabitants. Over 90% of the population faces food insecurity, and the war has left more than 2 million reliant on humanitarian assistance. For months before the ceasefire went into effect, experts were warning of potential famine. Three weeks after the ceasefire began, the fear had been mostly averted following a surge of humanitarian aid entering the region. Since the initiation of the ceasefire, groups like the World Food Programme have been able to scale up their reach to those in need of life-saving food assistance. This and other humanitarian relief efforts would have been near impossible without the ceasefire. Now, UN humanitarian officials are alerting that if the ceasefire breaks, then famine-like conditions will very quickly re-emerge.

Under the terms outlined in the Gaza ceasefire agreement that was implemented back in mid-January, this was meant to be the week when Israel should be pulling its troops from the Philadelphi corridor along the Egypt-Gaza border to pave the way for its full withdrawal from Gaza and the release of the remaining living hostages during a second phase of the deal. Talks regarding the second phase were supposed to begin on Day 16 of the 42-day first phase that has now ended, but with these not taking place as planned, many were unsurprised that a seamless transition from phase one to phase two failed to materialize. Israel has been accused of seeking to evade the stipulations of the agreement, and the mediating entities have emphasized that “there is no alternative to the faithful and full implementation by all parties of what was signed last January.” While the ceasefire deal is in peril and at an impasse, Arab leaders met in Egypt this week and endorsed an alternative plan to President Trump’s highly-criticized Gaza takeover proposal. The plan would involve three stages aimed at interim measures, reconstruction, and eventual governance over a span of four to five years. However, without a continued and lasting cessation of hostilities in Gaza, there is no opportunity for this plan or any other to begin to take place.

In the aftermath of Israel’s blocking of humanitarian aid entry, UN agencies state that food prices in Gaza have spiked and that aid parcels could soon run out. The surge is being caused by uncertainty amid the blockage, and various relief groups are working to try and understand the level of availability regarding the vital supplies that remain in Gaza.

Fallout from the Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy Oval Office Clash

A combative Oval Office meeting unfolded for all to see last week, as U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Vice President JD Vance scolded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for a perceived lack of gratitude towards the United States in a shocking display of diplomacy, or lack thereof. The incident has justifiably raised questions regarding the prospects of negotiating an end to the Ukraine War, while additionally prompting speculation on the impact that it could have on the state of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The fallout from the Oval Office clash has already had ramifications and continues to be felt, with many observers lamenting the flaring of tempers and shredding of regular diplomatic protocol. Others have also contended that Trump and Vance may have been keen to intentionally berate Zelenskyy as a means of playing to some of the American public’s growing weariness regarding the exorbitant level of U.S. financial support to Ukraine. Above all, the confrontational exchange underscored the undeniable tension that has emerged between the Trump administration and Ukraine during the American president’s first weeks back in the White House.

For a number of analysts, what transpired in the Oval Office highlights the evident foreign policy shifts regarding Ukraine and Russia that have been seen so far under the second term of the Trump administration. The president has turned towards Russia in a manner which has been deemed significantly beneficial to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, leading one Kremlin official to even comment that he is surprised by the “tremendous change” and that they welcomed Trump’s “pragmatic, rather than enemy-like approach.” Russian Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov added that Trump is “rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations,” – something that they are content with as it largely aligns with the Kremlin’s vision. On the other hand, most European leaders have reiterated support for Ukraine and continue to denounce Putin’s actions, however they have also emphasized their understanding of the United States’ important role and the need to try and find a suitable conclusion to the Ukraine War.

Officials from the United Kingdom have stressed that Trump and Zelenskyy must reset in order to get back on the same page and that ultimately, everyone across the European continent wants peace. In the aftermath of the heated exchange in the Oval Office, the UK has doubled down on its economic and military support for Ukraine. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a £1.6 billion UK export finance deal for Ukraine to buy “more than 5,000 air defense missiles” that will be made in Belfast, and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves will sign a £2.3 billion loan deal to allow Kyiv to buy more weapons, to be paid back using profits generated on Russian sovereign assets that are under sanctions. PM Starmer also commented that a “coalition of the willing” will be formed to provide a peace plan for Ukraine, with said plan then being taken to Trump. Despite Trump attempting to push back on the notion that he is pivoting towards Russia, many believe that the phenomenon is clear to see and has left Ukraine uncertain about its future.

Domestically, within the United States, there has been divided opinion on the U.S.-Ukraine fallout. Unsurprisingly, various Trump loyalists praised his and Vance’s actions, including U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) who remarked on X, “Thank you for standing up for OUR COUNTRY and putting America first, President Trump and Vice President Vance!,” while U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanded that Zelenskyy “apologize for turning this thing into the fiasco for him that it became.” In contrast, numerous Democratic leaders criticized Trump and Vance, with U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressing that they were doing “Putin’s dirty work” and stating that the United States should not reward Russian aggression and continue to appease Putin. Others like U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) pointed out what they viewed as inaccuracies such as the claims that Zelenskyy was not being grateful, as she commented that “Zelenskyy has thanked our country over and over again both privately and publicly. And our country thanks HIM and the Ukrainian patriots who have stood up to a dictator, buried their own & stopped Putin from marching right into the rest of Europe. Shame on you.” The way in which the clash played out caused some to question whether it might have been orchestrated beforehand as well due to snide remarks made about Zelenskyy’s attire prior to the meeting and the seemingly inorganic nature of Vance’s interjections. Rebuke was also levied at the Oval Office incident for having a damaging effect on U.S. global standing, with the style of “confrontational foreign policy” being derided as a poor way to conduct diplomacy.

In the days since the Oval Office encounter, President Trump has issued a pause on military aid to Ukraine until he “determines that Ukraine has demonstrated a commitment to peace negotiations with Russia.” The action has elicited concern among Ukrainians that Trump could be “leaving them out to dry and giving Russia the green light to continue marching west.” Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has proposed a framework for a possible ceasefire agreement with Russia after Trump’s decision on military aid. He also released a statement on X about Ukraine’s commitment to peace and stages in a ceasefire agreement which could “work fast to end the war.” Rather expectedly to counter the Trump-Vance “ungrateful” narrative, Zelenskyy added that he values and is grateful for how much the U.S. has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence, and that it was regrettable how the Oval Office meeting did not go as planned. According to him, “Ukraine is ready to sign” any agreement on minerals and security. In Trump’s address to Congress this week, the American president stated that he received an “important letter” from Zelenskyy about Ukraine being ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible in order to bring lasting peace.

President’s Speech to Congress Amid Trade War Escalations and News of Unprecedented U.S.-Hamas Direct Talks

On Tuesday evening, President Trump addressed a joint session of Congress for the first time since retaking office, in what amounted to the longest such speech in modern history. Trump sought to tout the array of actions that he has taken during the initial six weeks of his second term. The remarks this week were given in the midst of some noteworthy foreign policy developments, including trade war escalations and revelations regarding unprecedented U.S.-Hamas direct talks. The president reiterated his support for tariffs and erratic trade policies, even in the face of the market turmoil that they have caused, with Trump going as far as to acknowledge the disturbances and warning signs but attempting to downplay them. In addition to his brief mention of the situation in Gaza and his more extensive comments on Ukraine, on the domestic front, Trump defended Elon Musk’s efforts to slash the federal workforce, despite objections to the unilateral nature in which the cuts have been carried out.

During his speech, Trump spoke a great deal about tariffs and trade war developments that had taken place earlier in the day on Tuesday. He discussed his decision to levy 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada (including 10% on energy products) which had been put on hold last month because of an agreed-upon pause, and an increase to 20% tariffs on Chinese goods. The purported reasoning behind them was to “stem the flow of fentanyl into the United States,” although Canada plays a minimal role on the matter. Both China and Canada expressed plans to retaliate, with Beijing announcing “15% tariffs on chicken, wheat, corn, and cotton imports from the United States” and additionally a “10% tariff on sorghum, soybeans, pork, beef, aquatic products, fruits, vegetables, and dairy products,” while Canada responded with levies against billions in American goods. Following these Tuesday developments, later in the week on Thursday, Trump unveiled yet another tariff reversal as he would again be postponing them on many imports from Mexico and some from Canada for a month until April 2nd. This is now the second time in less than two months that Trump has announced and then backtracked on tariffs against the United States’ North American neighbors. Economic analysts have highlighted how the erratic back-and-forth trade policies are threatening investment and causing upheaval in the financial markets, while also creating a climate of uncertainty for businesses. The exemptions are due to last until early April, at which point Trump is planning another round of tariffs on goods from a range of other countries.

With respect to Trump’s planned April 2nd tariffs on a host of additional countries, the president attempted to justify them during his speech by remarking that “Other countries have used tariffs against us for decades, and now it’s our turn to start using them against those other countries.” He specified nations like China, India, and South Korea by arguing that they charge extremely high tariffs, but experts pointed out inaccuracies in statements that he made as India, for example, has historically imposed high tariffs on imported vehicles rating at 125% but to improve relations with the United States, they decided to reduce tariffs on luxury vehicles from 150% to 70%. Regarding South Korea, their tariffs on the U.S. are at 0.79% in 2024, as they signed the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 2007 (effective in 2012), which either reduced or eliminated most of the tariffs. On China, it is ultimately a “tit-for-tat” war on trade that has resulted in escalations, so for many observers of the speech, this portion of it was merely an attempt to try and stir up support for the soon-to-be April 2nd tariffs.

In addition to the diplomatic and foreign policy tensions that the trade war escalations are certain to create, they are also expected to have a significant impact on American households – particularly lower income ones. According to The Budget Lab from Yale University, the amount of disposable income lost for the bottom 20% could be 3 times as much compared to the top 10%, assuming full retaliation from U.S. trading partners. Domestically, economic experts forecast that electronics are likely to rise 10%, motor vehicles 6%, fresh produce 2.9%, and rice 4.4%. It is also expected that leather products, textiles, and wool will see an increase of 9.7%, 6.1%, and 5.7%, respectively. In other words, most things that Americans buy on a weekly basis are going to go up in price. Considering the back-and-forth and pauses on the tariffs and trade policies, it is impossible to say for certain what will happen in the coming months. However, what is known is that the tariffs among North American neighbors will impact Mexico and Canada far more than the United States. Trade accounts for about 70% of both Canada’s and Mexico’s GDP, compared to the United States’ 20%. Another expected effect of these tariffs is the weakening of every country’s currency, which would lessen the impact of these tariffs but raise the effective price of U.S. exports to other nations. There is also the possibility that tariffs will affect the global supply chain, but the magnitude of this is still unclear.

Trade war escalations were not the only foreign affairs-related subject that had notable developments play out during the course of the week. While President Trump’s address to Congress only included a brief mention of Gaza when he proclaimed that the United States is working to bring back hostages, news did break the following day on Wednesday – and was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt – that U.S. officials have been engaging in unprecedented direct talks with Hamas about the release of hostages and a broader agreement to end the war. The talks have been led by U.S. Envoy Adam Boehler, with Israel reportedly objecting to the secret negotiations in a tense call with the United States. Israeli officials are believed to have found out through other channels that the U.S. decided to still move ahead and conduct the talks despite their objections. Even as the Israeli government has tried to downplay the direct contact between U.S. officials and Hamas, the discussions are an important uncovering – especially in light of the uncertainty that currently surrounds the state of the Gaza ceasefire deal and where things may go from here moving forward.