Elizabeth N. Saunders

@profsaunders.bsky.social

27460 Followers 3608 Following

Professor of Political Science, Columbia. New Book: The Insiders' Game: How Elites Make War and Peace https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691215808/the-insiders-game

Webinar information for book discussion with Elizabeth Saunders and Paul Fritz, June 22, 1-2pm ET.
Conflicting reports from Trump and an unnamed US official on whether strikes are ongoing or soon to be over.
Opening paragraph of Caitlin Talmadge's article "Closing Time": Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz tops the list of global energy security nightmares.1 Roughly 90 percent of all Persian Gulf oil leaves the region on tankers that must pass through this narrow waterway opposite the Iranian coast, and land pipelines do not provide sufficient alternative export routes.2 Extended closure of the strait would remove roughly a quarter of the world’s oil from the market, causing a supply shock of the type not seen since the glory days of OPEC. Even if the strait were not closed in the sense of being physically barricaded, military confict in the area could cause prices to skyrocket in anticipation of a supply disruption—and to remain high until markets could be assured that the flow of commerce had been restored.
From CNN.com: The US will soon begin issuing passports featuring an image of President Donald Trump inside, a State Department official said Tuesday. The official said that the passport “will be the default passport out of the Washington Passport Agency when available” for those who renew their passports in person at that location. “Online options or other locations will maintain existing passport design,” the official said.
Anna O. Law delivers a talk on her new book, "Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship," at the Saltzman Institute at Columbia
Cover of Anna O. Law’s book “Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship”
Graph of Gallup data on a single question over time from 2002-2020, broken down by answer (Republicans, Democrats, or No Opinion/No Difference). Question reads, "Looking ahead for the next few years, which political party do you think will do a better job of protecting the country from international terrorism and military threats, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?"
Trump twitter post from January 7, 2020 after Iran struck US bases in Iraq, in retaliation for the US strike that killed Iranian General Qasim Soleimani: "All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning."
“The Iranians would not engage in high-level meetings with the U.S. until and unless they know that he’s going to make concessions to them.”
"Israel would have few constraints on its ability to conduct such strikes if Iran was no longer able to target ships in Hormuz or rain missiles on its Gulf neighbors, officials said. “But if Iran can block Hormuz, they have a deterrence tool” that the regime could wield in retaliation and mobilize global opposition, said Amos Yadlin, former head of the IDF’s Military Intelligence Directorate."
"rgy and economic security, given that one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies flow through the channel. The outcome in Hormuz, however, has additional strategic implications for Israel, where security officials increasingly expect that the need to conduct follow-on strikes against Iran will persist beyond any declared end to the current conflict. Israeli officials said they could regard such measures as necessary if the U.S. or Israel detected efforts by Iran to reconstitute its ballistic missile program, degraded by hundreds of strikes in recent weeks, or to recover its buried uranium in a rush to develop a nuclear weapon."
Chalkboard Politics Episode 3 logo
Figure taken from Saunders, "Leaders, Advisers, and the Political Origins of Elite Support for War," showing the fighting premium/penalty (in terms of public support) for using force if a hawkish/dovish advisers supports/opposes force.
We gather here to honor the courage of ordinary Americans willing to endure billy clubs and the chastening rod; tear gas and the trampling hoof; men and women who despite the gush of blood and splintered bone would stay true to their North Star and keep marching towards justice.
Obama commemorating the 50th anniversary of Selma
Image of the signature page of the National Defense Strategy, with Hegseth's signature looking like "PB&J"
For reasons I cannot entirely articulate, however, Rubio’s bald-faced lie will stick with the rest of my days. I don’t care what foreign policy horrors he might have averted behind the scenes. I really don’t. What I do know is that this man approved a rendition based on no real evidence, trampled on the first amendment, and then lied about what he had done.
Family photo from G20 in Hamburg, 2017, via European Commission. Names listed here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2017_G20_Family_picture_(03).jpg
The president could take even more significant actions as commander in chief. For example, the president could withdraw U.S. military assets and military personnel, defanging the U.S. commitment even if it remained on the books. The president could decide not to appoint the supreme allied commander of NATO, who is based in Europe but historically has always been an American. And the president could determine (and declare) that if a NATO member state were attacked, the United States would not necessarily invoke or abide by its commitment to Article 5 to come to that country’s aid. Indeed, Trump has already said as much on several occasions. Most recently, he said at a 2024 campaign rally that he would encourage the Russians to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries that do not meet their spending commitments.
A president disposed to undermine NATO could take many diplomatic and military actions unilaterally that would harm—perhaps even paralyze—the alliance. At the diplomatic level, for example, the president could decide not to appoint an ambassador to NATO. Additionally, the president could decide not to send his secretaries of state and defense and other officials to meetings of NATO defense ministers and foreign ministers or working-level meetings where much of NATO’s business gets done. Congress could haul administration officials in for questioning, but it has lost much of its inclination and capacity to conduct oversight of foreign policy in recent decades.
Chalkboard politics logo, a chalkboard with the podcast name and affiliations
Empty chalkboard...what will fill it?
From Galbraith to JFK, Nov. 21, 1961 : "In my completely considered view, as stated yesterday, Diem will not reform either administratively or politically in any effective way. That is because he cannot. It is politically naive to expect it. He senses that he cannot let power go because he would be thrown out. He may disguise this even from himself with the statement that he lacks effective subordinates but the circumstance remains unchanged. He probably senses that his greatest danger is from the army. Hence the reform that will bring effective use of his manpower, though the most urgent, may be the most improbable." From https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674528376
From State Dept transcript of Rubio appearance on This Week w/ George Stephanopolous: SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, we’re not going to judge moving forward based simply on what’s said in press conferences. We want to see action here at the end of the day. Rhetoric is one thing. You see rhetoric for a lot of different reasons. There’s a lot of different reasons why people go on TV and say certain things in these countries, especially 15 hours or 12 hours after the person who used to be in charge of the regime is now in handcuffs and on his way to New York. So what I will say is, moving forward, it’s very simple. We’re not going to be reactive here to statements at press conferences or what people say in a certain interview or what some media post – some media post somewhere. What we are going to react to is very simple: What do you do? Not what you’re saying in public – what happens? What happens next? Do the drugs stop coming? Are the changes made? Is Iran expelled? Is Hizballah no longer able and Iran no longer able to operate against our interests from Venezuela? Does the migration pattern stop? Do the drug trafficking boats end? Do you deal with the ELN and the FARC, two narcoterrorist organizations who control territory and operate with impunity from the territory of Venezuela against the interests of Colombia and the United States? These are the things we want addressed. If they are addressed, that’s how we’ll judge it. If they’re not addressed, that’s how we’ll judge it. QUESTION: And what happens if they’re not addressed?
Two headlines in the New York Times, one on the recall of 30 ambassadors, the other on the new “Trump-class” warships
“We do not need ships that are not optimized to provide lethality against the Chinese threat,” Montgomery said, adding that the new frigate has “zero tactical use” because it will not be equipped with a vertical launch system or the Aegis ballistic defense system.  “That is not what these are focused on—they are focused on the president’s visual that a battleship is a cool-looking ship,” he said. 
"Even if a deal does get done, it will be the true experts who work out the fine print — and make sure it lasts. Absent follow-through, the most grandiose efforts will not be enough to end the carnage. Getting two sides to a yes is only part one. But who will be there to finish the job? The everyday work of career officials has dramatically diminished. The State Department’s annual human rights reports have been pared down to the point of futility. The staffing level of the National Security Council has been reduced so significantly that it has led to open dysfunction. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, now also the acting national security adviser, has fired hundreds of State Department experts and members of the senior diplomatic corps."
“Afterward, one European official asked Witkoff to start speaking with allies over the secure fixed line Europe’s heads of state use to conduct sensitive diplomatic conversations. Witkoff demurred, as he traveled too much to use the cumbersome system.”
“In the days after Alaska, a European intelligence agency distributed a hard-copy report in a manila envelope to some of the continent’s most senior national security officials, who were shocked by the contents: Inside were details of the commercial and economic plans the Trump administration had been pursuing with Russia, including jointly mining rare earths in the Arctic. “
diminished.71 But the implications of an unconstrained United States go beyond whether it is willing to engage in this kind of international leadership in the future and how other countries might react. Unlike the transition after Trump’s first term, a future president who wants to recommit to a strong US role in global governance may find the country lacks the capacity to do so. If the behaviors that led to the United States’ sterling reputation for sovereign debt repayment are undermined by this instability and unpredictability, the foundation of US economic and military power may crumble.
To understand the implications of these changes for global governance and order, consider the thought experiment of inverting prior scholars’ findings about the democratic advantage and domestic audience constraint. For example, the inverse of Cowhey’s “credibility advantage” suggests that in the absence of domestic political institutions, US commitments to multilateral institutions of any kind are unreliable. Martin’s work, inverted, suggests that without legislative or other constraints on the executive, multilateral economic sanctions will be further undermined. Lake’s early work on the democratic peace suggests that an unconstrained United States will be more likely to become involved in wars it is less likely to win, and potentially more expansionist in ambition. Leeds’s emphasis on democratic alliance reliability can be inverted to suggest that the United States will now be a less reliable partner. Similarly, the consistency of foreign policy commitments will also be undermined.
Abstract: Any theoretically informed predictions about the future of international order and global governance must reckon with the power and intentions of the United States.We argue that fundamental changes in the nature of domestic audience constraint within many democracies, and the United States in particular, undermine both the willingness and the capability of the United States to continue its role as the underwriter of international order and global governance. A US government unbound by domestic constraint will have difficulty building broad coalitions to solve national and international problems because it will have reduced incentives to invest in public goods, including national defense, science and technology, and future economic prosperity; reduced barriers to corruption that undermines the quality of and trust in US capabilities; and reduced state capacity, including the capacity to finance wars and other long-term international commitments. We argue that three trends were especially relevant in reshaping domestic audience constraint: information fragmentation, extreme polarization, and a global threat environment that facilitated executive power concentration. Together they reduce the costs and risks for leaders to escape domestic audience constraints, weakening the institutional and accountability mechanisms that give democracies advantages in the international system. Though these trends affect many democracies, the undermining of US domestic constraint is particularly consequential because the United States shaped and buttressed the current system. An unconstrained United States likely means a less cooperative and less predictable global order, irrevocably altering the post-1945 system.
“We lose our credibility and our moral standing to criticize (Russian President Vladimir) Putin for murdering people, (Syrian President Bashar Al-)Assad for murdering people, (Venezuelan President Nicolas) Maduro in Venezuela for murdering people,” Rubio said. “We can’t say anything about that if we allow Saudi Arabia to do it and all we do is a diplomatic slap on the wrist.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a stalwart supporter of President Trump in recent months, vowed to freeze the administration’s legislative priorities until Ms. Haspel spoke to the Senate. “I’m talking about any key vote. Anything that you need me for to get out of town, I ain’t doing it until we hear from the C.I.A.,” Mr. Graham told reporters after the 90-minute briefing at the Capitol. He also promised there would “be no business as usual with Saudi Arabia” if American intelligence confirmed that Prince Mohammed was involved in Mr. Khashoggi’s killing. One United States official said that was precisely why the administration did not want Ms. Haspel to participate in the briefing.
“The only thing missing is a strategic explanation from the Trump administration that would clarify why the United States is amassing such a large force. Mr. Hegseth's posting on X was only the latest in a series of statements from administration officials that, at best, are in tension with one another. Some are outright contradictory.”
“Maduro is about to find himself trapped and might soon discover that he cannot flee the country even if he decided to,” the source said. “What’s worse for him, there is now more than one general willing to capture and hand him over, fully aware that one thing is to talk about death, and another to see it coming.” Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article312722642.html#storylink=cpy
Sign with Trump hair saying “It’s you, hi, I’m the problem it’s you”
Sign saying “ICE belongs in Antarctica” with a penguin
Photo released by the White House showing Netanyahu on the call, apologizing to the Qataris, while Trump balances the phone on his lap.
"It is also arbitrary or capricious because it reverses prior policy without reasoned explanation or consideration of reliance interests, and is based on statutes that have never been used in this way."
For all these reasons, this Court finds as fact and concludes as matter of law that Secretaries Noem and Rubio and their several agents and subordinates acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech. They did so in order to strike fear into similarly situated non-citizen proPalestinian individuals, pro-actively (and effectively) curbing lawful pro-Palestinian speech and intentionally denying such individuals (including the plaintiffs here) the freedom of speech that is their right. Moreover, the effect of these targeted deportation proceedings continues unconstitutionally to chill freedom of speech to this day.
Trump post on Truth social: "President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight. Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea....and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!"
Federal Register announcement of delegation of authority from Historical Advisory Committee to the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Excerpt: "The Trump administration talked about expanding manufacturing at home. But across the country, 400,000 factory jobs were currently vacant. “That’s what’s so crazy about this,” I was told by another community-college leader who asked not to be identified, out of fear of retaliation from federal and state officials. (“The stakes are too high for the students that we serve.”) Why short-circuit the schools that were the local engines of building the work force? Community colleges already subsisted on budgets that most four-year schools would find laughable, lean operations that delivered hefty returns on investment for their areas. Get care at a local doctor’s office, or prepped for surgery at a hospital, or treated after an accident, or have someone come to your home to do repairs — “those are all community-college grads, all of them,” the community-college leader told me. “This collateral damage is going to end up being regional economic damage.”"
Graph of Gallup responses from 2002-2020 to question, "Looking ahead for the next few years, which political party do you think will do a better job of protecting the country from international terrorism and military threats, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?" D's never crack 50% and top R's only once, at nadir of Iraq War.
Trump says talks with Iran scheduled, Wittkoff says “will be in next week or so”
“Which means a baby born in NY to undocumented parents will be a citizen. But a baby born to undocumented parents in Kentucky will not be a citizen. This is madness.”
State Dept homepage as of 9:19pm 6/21: "Israel's Unilateral Action Against Iran"
DoD homepage as of 9:15pm EDT 6/21: "Nascar Driver Ross Chastain Shares 'Get Up and Do the Job' Motivation During Pentagon visit; photo of him shaking hands with Hegseth
Tim Naftali's tweet on the termination of the HAC members without cause.
Hovering over the "read the op-ed" button brings up a link to the substack.
Screenshot of State homepage from shortly after 11am
Screenshot from shortly after 11am of State Department homepage
In which the inspiration for the last line of our letter endorses it
Rubio says Zelenskyy Ukraine-splained
The talks in Riyadh show U.S. diplomacy is part of the omnicrisis This is a long post, but it is worth explaining why none of this is likely to lead to a fair, lasting peace for Ukraine. And that brings us to the Occam’s razor explanation: Trump is not interested in a fair, lasting peace for Ukraine. The wreckage of the Trump team’s appearances in Europe and Rubio’s trip to Riyadh, show that whatever Trump is after, it’s not keeping Ukraine sovereign and in the European orbit, or making Russia pay any price for its illegal invasions. As I wrote here at Good Authority before the election, Trump’s foreign policy, for all his claims of unpredictability, is quite predictable in its fundamentals. Trump disdains trade pacts and alliances, and he admires dictators. The speed and force of the Musk-DOGE assault on the U.S. government may have been a genuine surprise even to Rubio. But it is only likely to accelerate the outcome Trump already wanted: a peace deal favorable to Russia and disastrous for Ukraine and its European supporters, along with – or maybe as a way to bring about – the demise of the State Department as an instrument of U.S. power.