In the corridors of Washington, an idea is circulating that seems absurd at first glance: a new “Core 5” group comprising the United States, China, India, Japan, and Russia. In stark contrast to the traditional G7 of Western democracies, this constellation would bring historic rivals to the table. The proposal, which reportedly surfaced in a longer, unpublished version of the U.S. National Security Strategy, is deeply polarizing. It fits perfectly with President Donald Trump’s style of cutting deals with “strongmen” – but it raises profound questions about the global order.
The Roots of the Idea: Trump’s Pragmatic Foreign Policy
The debate over the “Core 5” (C5) has a distinctly Trumpian flavor. The president has repeatedly shown he prioritizes ideology-free dealmaking with power players. Examples include approving Nvidia’s H200 AI chip sales to Beijing and dispatching envoys like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to negotiate directly with Vladimir Putin in Moscow. A former White House official from Trump’s first term confirms internal discussions: “Nothing around a C5 or C7 was formally discussed, but there were certainly conversations that existing bodies like the G-structures or the U.N. Security Council aren’t fit for purpose given today’s new players”.
The White House flatly denies reports of a longer strategy variant. Spokesperson Anna Kelly insists: “No alternative, private, or classified version exists” of the official 33-page document. Yet experts like Torrey Taussig, former director for European affairs on the National Security Council under Biden, see clear alignment with Trump’s worldview. “This fits how we know President Trump views the world: nonideologically, with an affinity for strongmen and a propensity for working with great powers that maintain spheres of influence in their regions”, she says. Notably absent: Europe entirely, reinforcing perceptions that Washington views Russia as the preeminent power over the continent.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fueled similar speculation by referencing a historic “G2 meeting” between Trump and China’s Xi Jinping. The National Security Strategy itself signals a pivot: away from “civilizational erasure” facing traditional European allies and toward a new focus on the Western Hemisphere. Critics like Michael Sobolik, a former aide to Sen. Ted Cruz, call it a reversal of Trump’s first-term China policy, which framed Beijing as a great-power competitor.
Potential Benefits
Proponents argue that forums like the G7 are obsolete. The C5 would engage actual superpowers: the U.S. as global hegemon, China as economic titan, India as rising democracy, Japan as tech vanguard, and Russia as energy giant with military reach. Shared agendas could span climate change, AI development, or trade wars – areas where cooperation might outpace confrontation.
Imagine a summit on neutral ground: Trump haggling chip exports with Xi, discussing Ukraine deals with Putin, and bolstering India-Japan ties. Trump’s Nvidia chip approval – taking 25% of U.S. revenue share – offers a blueprint. “We’re keeping China addicted to our chips while they build their own,” Trump justifies. Critics like ex-national security adviser Jake Sullivan deem it “crazy,” warning Beijing uses U.S. tech as a stepping stone.
Europe’s Nightmare: Drift from Transatlantic Alliances
For Europe, the C5 is a shock. Ignoring the EU and NATO signals Trump’s tolerance of Russian dominance on the continent. EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius accuses the strategy of undermining European unity – “a strategic push that views EU cohesion as against U.S. interests.” In a blog post, he cites Elbridge Colby’s 2021 book, which warns against any coalition challenging U.S. primacy.
Current events amplify fears. Trump pushes Ukraine peace talks, including ceding the entire Donbas to Moscow – a nonstarter for Kyiv. He conferenced with Macron, Starmer, and Merz yesterday on progress, but security guarantees and territory remain unresolved. British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper calls Trump “very serious” despite his unpredictability. Trump himself labels European leaders “weak” and vows support for aligned candidates. With warnings of Europe’s “civilizational erasure” – a nod to demographics and migration – Brussels is accelerating “post-America” defenses.
Global Ripples: From Venezuela to the ICC
The C5 fits Trump’s broader agenda. In Venezuela, tensions escalated: Trump announced seizing an oil tanker off the coast, bound for Cuba with state oil for Asian brokers – a blow to Nicolás Maduro. Military options like airstrikes loom, but logistics, MAGA divisions (hawks vs. isolationists), and slim invasion feasibility temper action. Rhetoric pressures Maduro, with even Mexico-Colombia expansions floated as 0.1% possibilities to “bring people to the table.”
Domestically, culture wars rage: Secretary of State Marco Rubio banned Calibri font, reverting to Times New Roman 14-point as a jab at Biden’s “DEIA waste.” On Capitol Hill, the NDAA inches toward passage amid conservative pushback. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi warns G2 talk misreads China as an adversary.
The ICC faces U.S. demands to amend its charter shielding Trump, Hegseth, and JD Vance – or risk sanctions halting Gaza, Afghanistan probes.
A Bold Conclusion: Navigating the Risks of a Great-Power Reset
As the “Core 5” idea simmers in Washington, it encapsulates Trump’s high-stakes realpolitik: sidelining moral posturing for pragmatic pacts among giants. If realized, it could forge unprecedented stability – tackling global crises like AI proliferation or resource wars through raw power balances, bypassing sclerotic institutions. Trump’s chip deal exemplifies the upside: mutual economic hooks fostering restraint over rivalry.
Yet the downsides loom large. Europe’s isolation could embolden Putin, fracturing NATO and inviting “spheres of influence” that redraw maps from Ukraine to the Baltics. China gains legitimacy without reforms, potentially accelerating Indo-Pacific dominance. India and Japan, democratic anchors, risk diluting alliances like the Quad. Critics like Kubilius and Sullivan rightly flag the gamble: short-term deals might fuel long-term threats, eroding U.S. credibility with allies while empowering autocrats.
Ultimately, success hinges on Trump’s dealmaking prowess. A functional C5 could reboot multipolarity for the 21st century, proving adversaries can co-govern. Failure, however, invites chaos – weakened democracies, unchecked aggressors, and a fragmented world. As Trump reshapes the board, the question isn’t if the old order crumbles, but whether the new one endures. Watch this space: the Core 5 may redefine power, for better or worse.
Comments