The CSPC Dispatch - Feb. 28, 2025
Welcome to The CSPC Dispatch!
This edition features insights into the sweeping policy shifts of the Trump administration’s second term, with Robert Gerber and Bridget Peach analyzing the proposed tariffs and their far-reaching economic and diplomatic implications. Caleb Mann explores the uncertain future of PEPFAR, the landmark U.S. global health initiative now caught in the crosshairs of budget freezes and agency upheaval.
CSPC is also proud to present our new report “The Gathering Storm: A Moonshot for National Defense Readiness”, a critical analysis of rising global threats and America’s declining defense readiness. As China, Russia, and their allies challenge U.S. strength, our military is stretched thin, and our defense industrial base is mired in bureaucracy. This report outlines practical solutions to restore America’s technological edge, revitalize defense acquisition, and reforge the public-private partnerships essential to maintaining peace through strength.
As always, we hope that you will find the newsletter useful and would be delighted to receive your feedback or thoughts on how we can improve going forward.
Five Questions on Trade
By Robert W. Gerber and Bridget Peach
The arrival of the Trump administration 2.0 has brought sweeping changes, particularly on the trade front. The week of February 13, President Trump announced a 25% tariff on goods imported from Mexico and Canada (currently scheduled for April), and an additional 10% tariff on goods imported from China. He raised the rate on Chinese imports to 20% on February 26. The White House intends to raise tariffs via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) after President Trump announced a national emergency due to the fentanyl crisis and illegal immigration. The President also issued a declaration to eliminate exemptions to “Section 232” steel and aluminum tariffs. He followed this with a request to agency heads to develop proposals to “counter non-reciprocal trading arrangements with trading partners by determining the equivalent of a reciprocal tariff with respect to each foreign trading partner.” This assessment should consider foreign countries’ non-tariff barriers and value added taxes, the announcement noted.
The tariff proposals have contributed to a growing climate of uncertainty among U.S. allies and the business sector alike. The Dow Index and NASDAQ experienced their worst week since October 2024 on fears of inflation and trade disruptions. Canadian companies have begun to cancel contracts with U.S. suppliers, according to comments by Rep. Cortez-Masto during the recent USTR nomination hearing. Canada, France, and the UK reacted by sending their respective leaders to meet with President Trump to better understand the goals of his tariff policies - and perhaps to forestall their implementation.
Few Americans would challenge the goal of reducing foreign barriers to U.S. goods or countering China’s blatantly unfair trade practices. But a blizzard of tariff announcements – some against Western likeminded trading partners - raises several legitimate questions. Here are five to consider.
First, what is the strategic objective here?
Second, how will tariffs – and inevitable retaliatory tariffs - affect the economy, including secure, trusted, and reliable trading relationships?
Third, when will Congress assert its constitutional authority over trade? Congressional trade committees have been notably quiet and are not considering any major trade bills currently. Congress did confirm Jamieson Greer as U.S. Trade Representative. Greer, a well-qualified trade lawyer and former public servant - pledged to closely consult with Congress if confirmed. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo issued a statement supporting the Administration’s “return to an active and robust trade agenda” and the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing in support of the Administration’s “trade enforcement” initiatives, citing the negative impact of digital services taxes. Democrats on the committee have used these hearings to admonish President Trump for threatening allies with tariffs, while also calling tariffs a tax on Americans (both can be true). Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden said, “Trump has shown he is willing to impose staggering costs on American families, workers and businesses in order to settle scores on issues that have nothing to do with trade or the economy.”
Fourth, what will courts say about the president’s use of IEEPA to raise tariffs? No president has successfully used IEEPA to raise tariffs. It is highly likely that use of IEEPA will generate lawsuits and that a court could issue a blocking order.
Fifth, do reciprocal tariffs signal the end of the WTO? President Trump has long threatened to pull the United States out of the organization. Reciprocal tariffs violate the WTO’s non-discrimination principle and could signal the beginning of this process. If other countries respond in kind, this would effectively unravel the foundations of the WTO, with unknown implications for the U.S. economy and global trade.
The effects of the Administration’s tariff policy hinge on these questions. In the meantime, exporters, importers, and allies will be forced to take trade uncertainty into account as they draft their plans for 2025 and beyond.
Robert W. Gerber is a a former U.S. diplomat and a Senior fellow at CSPC.
Bridget Peach is an intern at CSPC and junior at the University of Georgia majoring in International Affairs and Russian.
How Destroying USAID and Freezing PEPFAR Puts Millions at Risk in Africa
By Caleb Mann
President and Mrs. Bush in Botswana for a PEPFAR visit in 2017 (Source: US Embassy in Bostwana).
During his second State of the Union address in late January 2003, President George W. Bush delivered one of the most consequential speeches in recent American history. The post-9/11 address had a decidedly hard power edge, with Bush erroneously asserting the presence of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) stockpiles in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and grueling conflict. In the very same speech, however, Bush extended the olive branch of soft power, introducing the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This remarkable health program initiated an unprecedented effort to combat the global HIV/AIDS epidemic.
At the time of Bush’s speech, the HIV/AIDS epidemic was wrecking unimaginable damage on the African continent. A 2002 report from United Nations AIDS (UNAIDS) estimated that of the 40 million confirmed cases, 28.5 million were in sub-Saharan African countries. Nor did the unprecedented outbreak discriminate between men, women, or children. In his speech to Congress, Bush focused the chamber’s attention on the three million children already diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. As the death toll climbed literally into the millions, African hospitals became overrun and were incapable of supplying any meaningful treatment, and infection rates persisted despite U.N. attempts to stop the spread of the deadly disease. With life-saving antiretroviral drugs finally available to effectively combat the epidemic, President Bush characterized PEPFAR as a moral imperative for the United States. During his speech, he thus asked Congress to authorize $15 billion over five years to “turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations.” That profound commitment to a sweeping humanitarian cause came at a crucial time for American foreign policy. As the Global War on Terror (GWOT) intensified, highlighting the hard edge of U.S. military power, it was essential to also convey America’s goodwill and benevolence as a superpower. PEPFAR provided the Bush administration with the means to exert noncoercive, soft power on the African continent.
Less than four months after Bush proposed PEPFAR to Congress, he signed the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act into law. In his initial address, Bush projected that his plan would prevent seven million new AIDS cases, provide life-saving treatment for two million patients, and provide humane care for millions more. Yet even Bush underestimated the life-saving impact PEPFAR would have in Africa. In much of the developing world at the time, an AIDS diagnosis was tantamount to a death sentence, “You've got AIDS. We can't help you. Go home and die,” said Bush, quoting a South African doctor during his seminal State of the Union address.
Since the program’s launch two decades ago, PEPFAR has revolutionized the global fight against AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Phase One of PEPFAR focused on the emergency response, providing treatment, care, and education on AIDS prevention. By the end of its original mandate in 2008, PEPFAR was providing lifesaving care to 2.1 million patients and treating 10 million more, including more than four million children. PEPFAR’s initial success was credited with preventing 16 million transmissions of HIV and providing AIDS-prevention counseling for nearly 60 million people.
Reauthorized with an increased budget in 2008, Phase Two of PEPFAR achieved sustainability through local partnerships. PEPFAR’s second phase also ushered in a new era of international cooperation, strengthening local health systems and making fighting HIV/AIDS a top priority. With a focus on expanding treatments and preventing transmission through pregnancy, PEPFAR once again delivered unprecedented results.
In 2013, PEPFAR was reauthorized to continue U.S. leadership in the fight against AIDS. Phase Three achieved even more efficient control of the epidemic through increased testing and transparency. PEPFAR received its most recent reauthorization in March of 2024, extending the program for another year.
Yet PEPFAR operations came to an abrupt halt in January when the Trump administration issued a freeze on all foreign aid. Notably, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was decimated by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which froze its budget and laid off thousands of workers, while placing thousands more on indefinite leave. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued several exemptions to “life-saving programs”, including PEPFAR, however, as of this writing funds for the program have not started flowing again. With USAID acting as the principal agency responsible for implementing and allocating funds to PEPFAR, its apparent demise foreshadows a potentially bleak future for the PEPFAR program.
PEPFAR stands as the largest commitment any nation has ever made towards combatting a single disease, and its results speak for themselves. As of 2025, PEPFAR has saved nearly 30 million lives, provided life-saving treatment to over 20 million others, and it has prevented the spread of tens of millions of new cases. The unique program has also created real but hard to quantify admiration towards the United States in Africa, a strategic continent where both China and Russia are making inroads and trying to spread their influence. Putting PEPFAR into the “woodchipper” would thus undo decades of effort, foul a deep wellspring of diplomatic goodwill, and put the lives of tens of millions of Africans at increased risk. Someday the leaders of DOGE should have to explain how that makes America great again.
Caleb Mann is an intern at CSPC and junior at Virginia Tech majoring in History with a minor in Political Science.
CSPC In the news
In Germany, the Center Can Hold: But Only a Grand Coalition Can Foster Stability and Fend Off the Far Right
By Peter Sparding and Liana Fix
Originally published in Foreign Affairs on February 20, 2025
Germany’s once stable and drearily predictable politics are in disarray. At the end of last year, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition government collapsed, triggering the country’s first early elections in 20 years. Then, in late January, Friedrich Merz, the head of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the leading candidate for chancellor, pushed a hard-line motion tightening Germany’s immigration policies through parliament. To do so, he relied on the support of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), breaking for the first time a federal “firewall” imposed by Germany’s centrist parties against working with the AfD.