Last night, I went to a forum at Hampden-Sydney College put on by the Alexander Hamilton Society regarding Venezuela and what will happen next.
The presenters were intelligent, humorous, and well-versed on the military, legal and diplomatic machinations of what had occurred. However, they could not answer the question of what will come next.
They discussed the many reasons given by the Trump Administration for the operation, as well as whether or not any of them were actually valid and worth the deaths of almost 100 Venezuealans and Cubans. Without going into the panelists responses, which were well-reasoned, logical, and academically sound, they missed the true reason behind the entire operation.
The truth underlying all of Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions can be summed up in one sentence: He thinks and acts like a teenage boy.
Donald Trump’s foreign policy decision-making can be analytically compared to behavioral patterns commonly associated with adolescent male development, particularly impulsivity, emotional reactivity, dominance-oriented thinking, and limited appreciation for long-term consequences. While this comparison is metaphorical rather than clinical, it provides a useful framework for understanding how certain cognitive and behavioral tendencies shape Trump’s conduct on the international stage, including this recent foray into Venezuela.
One prominent characteristic of adolescent cognition is heightened impulsivity, driven in part by the incomplete development of the prefrontal cortex, which governs executive functions such as planning, risk assessment, and impulse control. Trump’s foreign policy decisions frequently reflected this tendency. Major policy announcements are often made abruptly, sometimes via social media, with limited evidence of interagency deliberation or strategic forecasting. Examples include sudden threats of military withdrawal, rapid shifts in alliance commitments, and unexpected tariff escalations. Such actions prioritized immediacy and visibility over coherence and predictability, a pattern consistent with adolescent decision-making under conditions of high emotional salience.
Emotional regulation also plays a central role in adolescent behavior. Adolescents are particularly sensitive to perceived disrespect or threats to status, often responding defensively or aggressively. Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric and actions frequently frames international relations in personal terms, interpreting diplomatic disagreements as affronts rather than policy differences. Responses to criticism from NATO allies, multilateral institutions, or foreign leaders often involve public rebukes or retaliatory posturing. This emphasis on dominance and status preservation parallels adolescent social dynamics, in which power and respect are frequently asserted through confrontation rather than cooperation.
Additionally, Trump’s foreign policy decisions exhibit a tendency toward cognitive simplification, another feature associated with adolescent development. Even in the Venezuela operation, the goal was to get Maduro out. The aftermath? It really doesn’t matter to Trump.
Rather than engaging with the structural complexity of global governance, Trump frequently reduces international relationships to transactional, zero-sum frameworks. Alliances are evaluated primarily on immediate cost-benefit calculations, and multilateral agreements are dismissed as failures if they did not produce visible short-term gains. This binary framing—success versus failure, strength versus weakness—reflects a developmental stage in which abstract and integrative thinking is still maturing.
Identity formation and the pursuit of external validation further strengthen this comparison. Adolescents often seek affirmation through performative behavior, tailoring actions to reinforce a desired self-image. (See Venezuela.) Trump’s foreign policy decisions frequently emphasize symbolic displays of strength, such as highly publicized summits, dramatic threats, or publicized disengagements from international agreements. These actions often appeared designed to reinforce a domestic political identity rather than to achieve measurable diplomatic outcomes.
Finally, Trump’s skepticism toward expert authority mirrors a common adolescent disposition. Career diplomats, intelligence professionals, and foreign policy institutions are frequently marginalized or publicly criticized. This resistance to expertise aligns with adolescent overconfidence and reliance on intuition, traits that can undermine decision quality in complex policy environments.
In conclusion, viewing Trump’s foreign policy decision-making through the lens of adolescent male behavioral patterns highlights consistent themes of impulsivity, emotionality, dominance-seeking, and resistance to complexity. While metaphorical, this framework underscores how developmental tendencies—when translated into executive power—can shape international relations in ways that privilege immediacy and image over strategic stability and long-term governance.
Yes, America. Our foreign policy is being led by an adolescent boy.
dum spiro, spero 