Report of a Harkness Centenary Discussions on the challenges emerging from President Trump’s second term, which took place on 28th May, 2025
Donald Trump’s second presidency is scrutinised by former Washington diplomat Anthony Cary and journalist Bridget Kendall MBE, who served as BBC Washington correspondent in the 1990s, and reported on the collapse of the Soviet Union as the BBC’s Moscow Correspondent. Financial Times UK business columnist and author John Gapper moderated in front of a live participatory audience of other Harkness Fellows. This is a summary of the points discussed.
What role liberals should play in opposing the rise of powerful authoritarian and potentially anti-democratic forces was a persistent theme throughout the Harkness Fellows Association’s fourth Centenary Discussion.
Was he a nativist, an isolationist or perhaps a transactional real estate developer asked John Gapper opening the event? More a transactional opportunist said Bridget Kendall who saw Trump 2.0 as a man in a hurry with a messianic strand running through. This time he was, she said, convinced that what he said was right even when changing his mind. It was a very potent and dangerous mix.
Not so long ago the USA was the bedrock of Western society; in a few short months Trump had upended the world order and turned against many post-World War Two alliances so that the world’s most powerful economy was no longer seen as reliable. Instead of America First it could be that Trump ended up turning America into America Alone – such was the likely fallout.
No one was really sure what might happen. On the Russian war in Ukraine Trump had grown increasingly frustrated with Putin to the extent that he had gone from talking about a potential US/Russia trade deal to the rumours in the press that he might follow Germany’s lead and lift Biden-era restrictions on Ukraine’s use of American weapons. He might even increase sanctions. After all, in reality, Putin did not want a peace deal; rather he was wanting Ukraine to come back under his influence. He was just playing for time.
On China, tensions were nothing new but the potential for a full scale trade war – despite short-term easing – were real and high. And what of his friends and long-term allies? In Europe he was threatening further trade wars; a possible US-Russian rapprochement over Ukraine that might split NATO and his government was meddling in European politics by speaking publicly to Germany’s AFD party and supporting the Conservative candidate in Poland’s presidential elections. Not the actions of a traditional American post-war liberal administration.
The problem this posed for Europe (including the UK) was that security and defence was so tightly intertwined that it was necessary to keep the relationships going with the USA while building up their own defence capabilities. Not an easy task by any means but there were silver linings. It was helping to simplify internal European regulatory processes and there was now a strong push for pan-European unity on defence. The Germans had already increased their spending and there were better relations between the UK and Canada and Europe.
Doubts remain about Trump’s commitment to NATO after he threatened to pull out in 2018. But it may well be that Europe has done enough to stave this with its intent to increase its funding for defence. Irrespective of this the broader picture is of the undermining of traditional alliances with a longer-term danger that NATO could become a hollow shell. Even in the shorter term, what were Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand supposed to do in a Five Eyes Intelligence Network with America given those in charge openly echo Russian talking points?
Bridget Kendall said there were many other traditional allies that Trump had picked quarrels with; Canada and discussion of it as the 51st state; claiming white genocide in South Africa; and a wish to make Greenland American. In the Middle East he’d given Israel a free hand in Gaza; lifted Biden’s restrictions on advanced and dual use technologies in the Gulf and there had been some progress on a mini nuclear deal with Iran.
His cuts to USAID and pulling funding from NGOs around the world were helping America to lose its historic soft power. And at home in the US leaving government posts unfilled and shattering other agencies were not saving money but instead increasing the sense of chaos and dysfunction. Removing funding from universities was affecting global research and putting restrictions on foreign students was making the US a place to avoid.
Most significant though was the effect of Trump on its constitution and its democracy. He claims that the mandate given to him by the people means he has the power to make or break the rules. The system is already being tested. Could he change the constitution and run again? Difficult to get the two thirds majority to change the constitution but regardless of this – a JD Vance candidacy would be unlikely to look much different. And even if the Democrats got their act together and found a decent candidate, would Trump and Vance accept the outcome? Well, he didn’t last time, she said.
Anthony Cary said he echoed what Bridget had said. We could no longer take a rules-based order for granted. But that it wasn’t yet clear how far Trump will go; whether his rule is a spasm from which the US can recover or if there will be permanent changes. “He’s very unpredictable, he’s transactional. He’s at once embarrassingly inept and ruthlessly impressive as a sort of cartoon mafia boss,” he observed. It was still not clear what the tariffs policy was really trying to achieve: (to restore industry to US?; to raise Govt revenues?; as a negotiating tool, to secure personal as well as national payoffs from those seeking relief?; all the above?)
The biggest issue was US democracy. Could it survive this assault on its very foundations? The Republican Party had folded with just a few opponents speaking out, and the Democrats were in a total mess. Trump had been able to sweep all before him. But the fightback was beginning with a huge number of court cases and other challenges to Trump’s ‘unitary executive theory’ (unilateral assumption of monarchic powers). The attacks on whole Departments of Government; the illegal deportation of migrants; the efforts to deport foreign students with ‘wrong’ views (and the denial of visas to new foreign students); and many other examples of Trumpian excess were being resisted. Trump had a particular animus against universities and scientists as bastions of the liberal establishment. Some had capitulated but Harvard, in particular, had not, so there was some serious opposition; it was a matter of whether it could win through.
Trump had failed on Ukraine (as on Gaza!) and he finally seemed to realise that he’d been played for a fool by Putin. But how will he react? If he and Putin concoct a peace deal that neither Ukraine, Europe nor NATO are willing to accept, then there’s a really serious crisis in world affairs. That said, Putin isn’t interested in a peace deal involving mere acquisition of territory as he wants, above all, to subjugate Ukraine. So the hope is that Trump will walk away (ideally with continuing military support for Ukraine and strengthened sanctions against Russia) rather than seek to impose a deal in a form NATO cannot accept.
In Canada he’s trying a series of carrots and sticks to get his way. But he has united the whole country against him. Canadians thought America was their closest relationship, and are genuinely hurt by Trump’s imperialist ambitions. It’s why Mark Carney won. One problem is that the US accounts for some 70% of Canadian exports, while Canada represents only 3% of America’s. They are united for now – but can they endure an extended siege? [Canadians, incidentally, were nettled by the UK’s kid-gloves approach to relations with the new US Administration, including the offer of a State Visit. But the King’s Speech from the Throne had done a lot to reassure them.]
One unanswered question regarding the “New World (Dis)order” is how far the UK is prepared to adapt to the changing landscape. There’s a lot of grand talk about defence investment and so on but it comes at a time when we are incredibly weak domestically with our economy broken and our relationship with Europe in a mess. There doesn’t yet seem to be a real sense of urgency. It will take something quite dramatic to drive fundamental change.
“I feel the penny still has to drop in this country,” he added.
John Gapper highlighted parallels between the USA and China. He said China had realised that with its 1.4bn population and cheap workforce it had something to offer in exchange for access to its market. Trump has seen a similar opportunity in charging for exports to the US as the world’s largest economy. There’s some truth in this, although it will raise US inflation and cause other side effects. If he ends up charging every nation 10 per cent tariffs, he believes the US will make money from it by exercising its market power. He fundamentally feels the US is being ripped off.
John opened the session to the floor. The first to speak said that she had just been sent a message by an American friend to say that she’d read that the US was going to issue visa bans for foreign nationals who censor Americans. It was, said Anothny Cary, amazing that a country with the fourth amendment could be even thinking of going through people’s social media accounts checking that they had the “right view of the world”. Participants noted the use by colleagues of clean burner phones when travelling to the US or entering from different countries.
HFA Chair, Judy Hargadon, noted that a fellow working in Harvard wrote to her asking for support. Since all Fellows had benefitted from studying oversees, specifically in America, what should they, individual fellows or the Association, be doing about what she described as an enormous fight? A participant noted that now more than ever schemes such as the Harkness Fellowships were important. One Fellow replied that they should be supporting friends and colleagues as best they could. Another said if we were in a position akin to the 1930s, then we had to show unity in a Europe that believed in equality and fairness and that we pay attention to science and rational argument. “We need to say how appalled we are with what is happening, how America seems to have completely gone crazy,” he added. “Do we know the scale?” asked another who said that the American situation was having huge knock-on effects in places such as Turkey and Georgia.
But another said that there was a risk that the group was talking in a bubble – and in any case they were the very people, the liberal intelligentsia, that Trump supporters didn’t like. “I’m not sure America is going to be listening,” he said. Another Fellow said there was little they could do about America and perhaps they should instead be learning the lessons of the rise of Trump to protect against a Reform government at the end of the decade. “Let’s think about it as a warning, let’s use it, learn from it,” she said.
One Harkness Fellow, who said he was not a Trump supporter, said that nonetheless it was clear how he got support. Europe and the UK had not spent enough on defence; there was a feeling among some that the US was becoming a deindustrialised society; and tariffs against the US were generally higher than the US imposed on other countries.
One Fellow indicated how pressing the issue was for him as he was travelling to Harvard in a couple of weeks’ time and wasn’t sure how to deal with the varying and varied views. Friends he used to study with didn’t necessarily understand the parallels with the 1930s and this should form the basis of their communication.
Anthony Cary said it was difficult for Fellows to intervene directly as Trump enjoys firing up his base by “sticking it to the libs”. But he hoped those who still believed in a rules-based liberal international order would stand by their principles. Two international events coming up (the G7 and NATO Summits) would afford the rest of the free world an opportunity to lay down a marker. Bridget Kendall concurred. It was hard for Harkness as a group to do anything but there were now opportunities for the UK and Europe as there were countries who now wanted to bypass the US to have better conversations with us, Brazil, South Korea and South Africa for example. Liberal values of equality and fairness were not just European values, they were universal, she said. ohn Gapper said that he wasn’t sure what a bunch of well-meaning liberals should do either but there were starting to be opportunities for the UK. There was a potential brain drain occurring in America with scientists and academics considering leaving. This could be in the UK’s favour, if it provided a welcoming home.
Biographies
Moderator
John Gapper (HF1991-92) is chief UK business columnist of the Financial Times, writing on UK companies, entrepreneurs and policy. He is author of All That Glitters, about the fall of Barings, and two novels: A Fatal Debt and The Ghost Shift. His awards include the Harold Wincott prize for financial journalism and the US Gerald Loeb award for business commentary. He has worked in London, New York and Tokyo.
Speakers
Anthony Cary (HF 1980-82) was a diplomat who served in Washington DC, as chef de cabinet to Chris Patten in the European Commission, and later as British Ambassador to Sweden and High Commissioner to Canada. He is Chairman of the Canada-UK Council.
Bridget Kendall MBE (HF1978-80) was BBC Moscow correspondent covering the collapse of the Soviet Union 1989-94, served five years as BBC Washington Correspondent in the 1990s, and 17 years in the senior role of BBC Diplomatic Correspondent. In 2016 she was appointed the first female Master of Peterhouse, serving a 7 year term, as well as acting as Deputy VC of the University of Cambridge 2020-23. From 2008-2022 she hosted a weekly discussion programme on academic topics for the BBC, The Forum. Her book The Cold War; a New Oral History explores the decades long conflict through eye -witness accounts. She received the James Cameron Award for distinguished journalism.
Report prepared by Nick Pearson of Pearson and Pearson (communications) Ltd
Photos thanks to Wiki media Commons, Nmattson10 and Jay Godwin.