Core Argument - The speech by Stephen Milan, Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, equates U.S. military presence and the dollar system to "global public goods," suggesting that other countries should bear a "fair share" of the costs through acceptance of U.S. tariff policies, which reflects a "tariff-funded hegemony" logic [1][2] Group 1: Misinterpretation of Economic Concepts - The characterization of U.S. military deployment as a "global public good" distorts the economic concept, as public goods are defined by non-competitiveness and non-exclusivity, while U.S. military bases serve its own geopolitical interests, indicating a self-serving nature [1] - The U.S. military presence creates security pressure for non-allied countries rather than providing public welfare, exemplified by the tensions arising from NATO's eastward expansion [1] Group 2: Dollar System and Economic Benefits - Although approximately 50% of global trade is settled in dollars, this monetary hegemony primarily benefits the U.S., which gains substantial "seigniorage" revenue from issuing the world currency [2] - The U.S. has created a risk-shifting and "tide harvesting" mechanism through its monetary policies, such as the Federal Reserve's unlimited quantitative easing in 2020, which imposed inflationary pressures on the global economy [2] - The U.S. employs financial sanctions through systems like SWIFT, highlighting the exclusivity of the dollar system, while framing it as a "public good" is a mockery of international economic realities [2] Group 3: Coercive Economic Policies - The proposed solutions under the "tariff-funded hegemony" include coercive measures such as accepting tariffs, increasing purchases from the U.S., and direct payments to the U.S. Treasury, which force other countries to adjust their economic policies for U.S. interests [3] - This approach of economic bullying contradicts the principles of equal negotiation and mutual benefit advocated in modern international relations [3] Group 4: Internal Economic Challenges - The U.S. faces significant fiscal pressures and economic challenges rooted in its own policies, including high military spending and imbalanced fiscal policies, which have led to substantial national debt [3] - Blaming external factors for these internal issues and attempting to impose tariffs as compensation is an ineffective strategy that does not address the underlying problems [3] Group 5: Future of International Relations - The current global landscape necessitates multilateral coordination and cooperation to address complex challenges, rather than unilateral dominance and bullying [4] - Any attempts to maintain hegemony by forcing the world to pay for U.S. privileges are counterproductive, and major powers should focus on promoting peace, development, and genuine global public goods [4]

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that Trump's foreign policy does not fundamentally overturn the traditional U.S. diplomatic approach but rather reflects a more overt expression of the long-standing U.S. hegemonic nature in international relations [1][4][6]. Group 1: U.S. Foreign Policy Under Trump - Trump's administration has been characterized by a series of "America First" policies, which include imposing tariffs, withdrawing from international agreements, and exerting pressure on allies, suggesting a return to a more isolationist stance reminiscent of 19th-century imperialism [2][3][8]. - The administration's actions, such as the imposition of 25% tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, reflect a protectionist ideology that has historical precedents in U.S. foreign policy [2][6]. - Trump's rhetoric about making Canada the "51st state" and threats to annex Greenland illustrate a revival of imperialistic tendencies in U.S. diplomacy [3][5]. Group 2: Historical Context and Continuity - The article highlights that many of Trump's foreign policy actions have historical parallels, such as previous administrations' withdrawal from international organizations and the use of economic leverage to achieve political goals [4][6]. - Notable examples include Reagan's and Obama's administrations, which also exhibited similar tendencies to withdraw support from international bodies when U.S. interests were perceived to be compromised [4][6]. - The historical context of U.S. interventions, such as the CIA's involvement in the overthrow of Congolese Prime Minister Lumumba, underscores a long-standing pattern of prioritizing resource control and geopolitical interests over international norms [6][8]. Group 3: The Nature of "America First" - The concept of "America First" is portrayed as a consistent theme in U.S. foreign policy, driven by a desire to maintain hegemony and respond to perceived threats to national interests [7][8]. - Analysts suggest that the current administration's more blatant embrace of "America First" reflects a response to declining U.S. power and rising anxieties among the elite and the general populace [8]. - The article posits that the roots of Trump's policies can be traced back to historical U.S. expansionism and a self-serving interpretation of democracy that justifies unilateral actions on the global stage [8].