—
When the National Association of Scholars convened its panel on the Trump administration’s first-year foreign policy record, Dr. George E. Bogden arrived with something most analysts don’t: a view from inside the room where the decisions were actually made.
As Executive Director of the Office of Trade Relations at U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 2025, Bogden served as the agency’s primary liaison to the international trade community during one of the most consequential periods in American trade history. He helped implement the administration’s tariff initiatives. He sat in on meetings. He watched policy move from concept to execution. That experience shaped everything he said on the panel — and gave the conversation a texture that think-tank analysis rarely delivers. Today, George Bogden is Senior Counsel at Continental Strategy, where he leverages his room-where-it-happened trade expertise to provide expert analysis to the private sector.
The event, moderated by Dr. Lilla Nora Kiss and featuring co-panelists Dr. J. Michael Waller and Dr. Ian Oxnevad, ranged widely: Iran, Greenland, Venezuela, NATO, China. But Bogden’s thread through it all was consistent. The administration isn’t operating from chaos. It’s operating from a set of hard-nosed premises that its critics are only beginning to understand.
Trade as Strategy, Not Nostalgia
Bogden opened by reframing what most commentators get wrong about the Trump trade agenda. The America First Trade Policy isn’t protectionism in any classical sense, he argued. It’s a systematic diagnosis of how the global trading order has tilted against the United States and a blueprint for correcting it.
One element, he noted, has caught many off guard: the tariff as a revenue source.
“The United States provides all sorts of positive public goods to the international trading system,” he said. “The fact that you can navigate over the high seas with a billion dollars of commerce on board has a lot to do with the security environment the United States creates.”
If America funds that environment, it’s reasonable to ask trading partners to help pay for it.
The other element is fraud. Bogden was direct about the scale of transshipping and customs abuse distorting global trade data.
“How do you construct a tariff policy that captures all of that taking place, but also tries to prevent, reverse, and deter it?” he asked.
That, he argued, is what the America First Trade Policy is actually designed to do. Liberation Day’s global tariff structure wasn’t a scatter shot. It was an attempt to reach supply chains that bilateral measures couldn’t touch.
Bogden’s concept of “economic brinksmanship” cut to the heart of the matter. Tariffs are not just about protecting industries. They are instruments of leverage — tools for extracting political outcomes that traditional diplomacy has failed to achieve. “President Trump is exceptional at understanding where the power dynamic currently is, not just between the United States and its adversaries, but also between the United States and allies who have laundered Chinese overcapacity or looked the other way on Iran.” The tariff is a message, delivered in a language everyone understands.
Flexible Realism: A Framework for What’s Actually Happening
When co-panelists offered their takes on the administration’s broader foreign policy posture, Bogden drew the threads together with a concept he called “flexible realism.” The word “flexible” is doing real work here, he was careful to note. It doesn’t mean anything goes. It means refusing to be trapped by the determinism that has paralyzed American foreign policy for decades — the assumption that power dynamics are fixed, that adversaries can’t be moved, that the only options are the familiar ones.
He offered a sharp diagnosis of the alternative: “Driving while looking through the rearview mirror.” Bogden described the foreign policy establishment’s habit of evaluating current challenges through outdated frameworks — particularly the post-9/11 logic of counterinsurgency and nation building. He found it telling that many who opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are now insisting the administration must offer some equally elaborate ground-based strategy for confronting Iran. “It’s as though the episode that presented the United States with an impossible set of goals now has to be replicated,” he said. “And if it’s not, it’s some sort of horrible problem.”
This, Bogden argued, is the core methodological failure. The administration is looking forward. Critics are looking back. And when the critics call it chaotic, they’re really just saying they don’t recognize the map.
The Monroe Doctrine Returns
On Venezuela, Bogden pushed back against the search for a single, clean explanation. Those who want a monocausal account — it’s about democracy, it’s about oil, it’s about migration — are, in his view, missing the forest for the trees.
What’s actually going on is hemispheric. Venezuela was a one-stop shop for American adversaries — a foothold for China, Iran, and Russia in the Western Hemisphere. “If China wants to do something nefarious, if Iran wanted to do something nefarious, Venezuela was an open door for everything they needed.” Removing that foothold is inseparable from the broader project of securing the hemisphere’s supply chains, technological infrastructure, and strategic depth.
This is the Monroe Doctrine, updated for 2025. Bogden had invoked it at other points in his public commentary: if something can’t be produced safely inside American borders, it should come from within the neighborhood. The Western Hemisphere as a second line of defense. On the panel, that logic extended naturally to Venezuela: the hemisphere has to be made safe not just for American products, but for American strategy.
On NATO, Alliances, and the Discipline of Saying Hard Things
The discussion of Greenland and Western Hemisphere defense led naturally to NATO — and to the recurring charge that Trump is bad for alliances. Bogden gave that argument no quarter, but he engaged it seriously.
He recalled asking German foreign policy contacts what German interests actually were on a given question. The answer he repeatedly received: multilateralism. Not a policy position. Not a strategic objective. A process. “To the extent that multilateralism has been a means for countries to avoid expressing their true interests in any particular foreign policy problem, or to hide behind it — that’s a problem.”
He drew on his experience as a Fulbright Fellow in Kosovo to illustrate the point. The UN mission there — UNMIK — continues to exist not because it serves Kosovo’s interests, but because Russia won’t allow its budget to be zeroed out. This is what adversarial multilateralism looks like in practice: a bureaucratic veto dressed up as international order.
None of this, Bogden was careful to say, means NATO is obsolete. “It’s foolish to say NATO should be abolished or becomes irrelevant.” The question is whether NATO serves its purpose without becoming a dependency — and whether Germany and France are willing to be serious about security concerns that extend beyond Russian missiles to Chinese supply chains. Alliance management, he concluded, is ultimately about delivering hard messages. And the metric for Trump’s presidency should be whether allies emerge more aligned with the United States than they were before.
Grand Strategy, and What the Critics Get Wrong
The panel’s closing exchange turned to grand strategy — whether the administration has one, and whether it can be recognized. Bogden’s answer was yes, and the critics are failing to see it because they’re looking for something familiar.
The administration has, in his view, corrected a fundamental distortion: the idea that the United States should subordinate its national interests to multilateral processes and international institutions. “There was a pretense that the United States is supposed to be doing good in the world, operating as a pillar of this multilateral order — and that had come to supplant the pursuit of national objectives that serve the American people.” Trump has challenged that pretense directly. The debate happening inside the administration about means and ends is itself, Bogden argued, moving American foreign policy toward a new and healthier equilibrium.
To those who call it chaos, Bogden offered a pointed rejoinder: Dean Acheson’s observation that conducting American foreign policy is like playing poker with your cards face up while everyone else holds theirs close. Transparency is a feature of democracy. It isn’t the same as incoherence. “The suggestion that unless you are comfortable with the administration’s logic, it is therefore irrational or erratic — that is a flawed way to interpret what’s going on.”
Reality Wins
Asked for a one-sentence takeaway to close the session, Bogden didn’t hesitate. “There’s a wonderful expression: reality always wins. To the extent that President Trump has forced American foreign policy elites to come to terms with that phrase — that’s what I’d stick with.”
It’s a deceptively simple statement. But coming from someone who spent a year inside the machinery of the administration’s trade revolution — helping build, implement, and defend some of the most consequential customs policy changes in a generation — it carries weight. George Bogden isn’t guessing at what the administration thinks. He was there. And what he saw, he argues, is not chaos. It’s a serious country making serious choices, finally.
—
This content is brought to you by Muhammad Asim
