The status quo isn't working for enough Americans. For first time in U.S. history a generation is more likely to be worse off than their parents. There use to be 10,000 people dying a year from ODs, in 2000, that number is now over 100k. A couple podcasts of you want a better idea of their reasoning. You don't have to agree with it, but they've been telegraphing what they're trying to do.
None of that has any relevance to the OP, which was the discussion of working with world leaders who might be unsavory, etc. (I did watch the Bessert one a few days back --wasn't overly impressed by his selective figures for spending as a percentage of GDP. He claimed "Biden blew it out of the water". Except he didn't. Donald did:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S. Spending as a % of GDP was over 30%. There's a transistory period of spikes (WW2) and normally os spending as a % of GDP (17-18%).
Again, the original premises was about foreign diplomacy, which to feels very much like Peter Thiel's dopey "destruction of the ancien regime" babblespeak combined with Curtis Yarvin's bizarro world theories.
What happened to the republican muse Milton Friedman, a guy I agree with nearly always? My faux namesake had this to say about trade balances:
"In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports, and if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s
upside-down. What we send abroad, we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. The goods and services we send abroad, are goods and services not available to us. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, with automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use.
The
gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is a
cost of getting those imports. And the proper objective for a nation as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things so that we get a
s large a volume of imports as possible, for as small a volume of exports as possible.
This carries over to the terminology we use. When people talk about a favorable balance of trade, what is that term taken to mean? It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance. That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in. Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get fewer coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less"
This adminstration's upside down view of the world is going to cause serious problems.