Surely he understands the interplay between the usd being the world reserve currency and the importance of allies and military bases set across the world and how this aids US prosperity
Germanies foreign reserves are nearly all treasuries. We might (naturally) diversify away. By taking on a large amount of debt we will simultaneously create an alternative safe asset (bunds).
what he is is opinionated and narcissistic with a highly unusual, but predictable - and successful - way of operating that people still somehow fail to recognise. if you think he's stupid, he's winning because you're not seeing his real intentions.
I will also point out that he's a political obsessive, including when it comes to foreign policy, and it would be once again quite obviously impossible for someone in his position to not know how US foreign policy works. he quite clearly just doesn't care about losing the benefits of world influence and prefers the long term idea of a different system, one where the US is more self-reliant and his businesses have less competition from foreigners.
obviously most economists will tell you that that is stupid, and I'd mostly agree, but it's a far far softer kind of stupid than not understanding the incredibly basic central tenet of US foreign policy for the last 80 years.
I ask sincerely, because I would love nothing better: can you point to an interview where he demonstrates any depth or nuance to his foreign policy decisions, that would indicate he pays attention to any of the details we’re discussing?
He’s clearly a political obsessive, but that doesn’t guarantee knowledge. Rather I think he operates on a set of brutish principles that appeal to a certain sets of people.
To your example, it’s easy to espouse a simple idea like isolationism and obsessively work towards it without understanding the finer implications.
first of all, I shouldn't have to, because what we're talking about is a surface-level issue that a child could understand, not something deep or nuanced.
but anyway, here's one example: a while ago Trump suggested that there's a chance the US won't support NATO in the case of an invasion of a member state. can you yourself analyse the real intention and actual result of this foreign policy decision?
He's smart at scams and self promotion, anything else he's intellectually lazy about.
He cares a lot about influence at least while he's in charge but he undervalues or ignores soft power and just tries to bully allies.