For the past 15 years, U.S. national security officials have met each July at this idyllic mountain retreat in Colorado to speak openly about the biggest threat to the world. But this year's Aspen Security Forum sometimes appears to be held in a parallel universe where Donald Trump is not the president.
In the past, interviews and live chats here have made headlines around the world here to see who the U.S. government is considering a threat to national security.
But Trump's team boycotted this year's meeting. Some former officials and experts who did participate seem to downplay the huge changes the Trump administration has made to foreign policy, suggesting that some of the country’s top experts have not struggled to win the new world order he was trying to establish, or that they were afraid to talk about it openly.
Those who may be able to explain what the president is thinking are nowhere to be seen.
Those who may be able to explain what the president is thinking are nowhere to be seen.
Few Trump administration officials agreed to attend, and most (mostly military leaders) were suddenly cancelled on the eve of the meeting. The Pentagon ordered them not to show up, saying “Forum promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great nation, and hate for the president of the United States.”
The allegation is not only false, but ironic, because even before cancellation, one might argue that some panel discussions in Aspen this year seem to be understated by Trump’s historic changes to U.S. foreign and trade policy, which, despite the contrary, have been advocated for a whole career.
There is no mention of Trump's impact on U.S. national security, such as the transfer of FBI agents to immigration enforcement and the re-focusing of counter-terrorism efforts toward Latin American gangs. Nor is it serious about the development, such as the intelligence community, the FBI and the State Department's national security experts' exit.
Some spokespersons seem determined to avoid criticizing the president and his policies, even if Trump’s handling of the issue directly contradicts their long-standing statements.
Some of them are the fruits of goodwill – Aspen Security Forum has been doing its best to be a safe space for both sides. In fact, several senior officials from the first Trump administration hiked to Aspen for a panel discussion, including the CIA director, the FBI director and two Homeland Security secretaries.
But things have changed. The Trump administration not only refuses to interact with perceived opponents, but also uses power leverage to punish them, from law firms to colleges to individuals. More than one Aspen Security Forum participant admitted in the record there are widespread concerns that opposing Trump could harm his business or professional interests.
The result is a party that sometimes seems out of touch with the actions and policies of the Trump administration.
You may have expected some spokespersons to condemn Trump’s historic cuts to foreign aid.
Consider foreign aid. A spokesperson at the Aspen Security Forum has long touted the benefits of U.S. soft power, especially foreign aid. So you might want some of them to denounce Trump’s historic cuts to the U.S. International Development Agency, a study that predicts that it could cost 14 million lives by 2030.
However, a group examining the subject was awarded Mirquites' title “The Weight of the World: International Aid and Trade”. Host Dafna Linzer's Dafna Linzer asked the foreword of former U.S. Agency for International Development Director Henrietta Holsman: “President Trump has changed a lot under his leadership of aid and trade, challenges and opportunities – how do you view the field?”
Fore is short, straightforward, referring to Trump’s layoffs being “a typhoon achieved through our ecosystem,” but she quickly moved on. It is important to look forward to it, she said, “What should we do now?”
When she talks about the potential of artificial intelligence and quantum computing to improve the efficiency of foreign aid, the Atlantic reported that the U.S. government has decided to incinerate nearly 500 tons of food aid, which has expired.
When Edward Luce of the Financial Times asked about George W.
Later this week, Congress voted on the previously approved $8 billion in foreign aid at Trump's request.
A Russian expert whose ideas cannot be completely opposed to Trump's experts celebrates the president's recent expression of his annoyance to the “turning point” of the Ukrainian war in Ukraine, and even proposes that Trump has long disputed Putin's “affinity” for Putin.
Rice, who has developed a highly respected foreign aid program to fight HIV during the Bush administration, also refused to criticize Trump's aid cuts.
Other speakers are more blunt. Robert Zoellick, a former official in the Reagan and Bush administration, has not tried to cover up his disdain for Trump's trade and tariff policies, saying they will raise costs, increase investor uncertainty and undermine strategic relations with allies. A group of Chinese experts, including the first Trump administration, also largely agreed that the president has no other strategy than trying to get the country to buy more American goods.
“I don’t think he has a moral meaning to America, leading the free world, democracy is a value,” said Elizabeth Economics, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.
Not surprisingly, the strongest statement about the Trump administration comes from two Democratic Senators, Mark Warner and Chris Coons.
“We're basically seeing 75 years of soft power disruption in six months,” Warner said in a panel that was supposed to include Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas.
He canceled at the last minute without explanation.
subscription Project 47 Newsletter Get weekly updates and expert insights on key issues and numbers that define Trump’s second term.