Trump's treatment of Zelensky mirrors the Genet affair

[MJ]

[ARTICLE LINK]

Mar 02, 2025
Trump's treatment of Zelensky mirrors the Genet affair
And the establishment of a non-interventionist foreign policy that would last a century
Tom Mullen

President Trump confirmed a major foreign policy shift in dramatic fashion on Friday when he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to leave the White House after a heated public argument that included both presidents and U.S. Vice President Vance. Zelensky was in Washington to sign a mineral deal with the U.S that was aborted, at least for the moment, after both Trump and Vance took exception to Zelensky’s criticism of the Trump administration’s position regarding negotiations with Russia.

The incident was cheered by Trump’s supporters and condemned by all the usual suspects among his detractors, expressing outrage and embarrassment that a foreign head of state would be treated this way. But the real question it raises is whether it will mark the beginning of Washington’s return to the foreign policy bequeathed by the man whose name it bears.

No American alive today has known firsthand any other foreign policy than the one the U.S. government maintained throughout the 20th century, which is active involvement, both military and by other means, in the affairs of foreign nations, especially in Europe. Washington’s worldwide standing army of over 200,000 troops deployed overseas has become a norm taken for granted, as has the so-called “special relationship” with the United Kingdom and the “alliance” with Israel (the U.S. has no formal treaty with that country).

But it wasn’t always this way. Most Americans would be surprised to learn that their country became rich and powerful enough to be capable of affecting global geopolitics with precisely the opposite foreign policy. More surprising still might be that 19th century U.S. foreign policy was launched with an incident eerily similar to Friday’s.

In 1793, the French government executed its former monarch, Louis XVI and declared war on Great Britian. Americans were deeply divided over how to respond, as was Washington’s own cabinet. In general, the Federalists favored neutrality in what could become yet another war involving many European powers. Jefferson’s Republicans, although not yet a formal party, insisted the U.S. must honor its 1778 mutual aid treaty with France, which had been crucial to the United States winning their independence.

After much internal debate, Washington issued a proclamation of neutrality on April 22, although its text did not contain the words “neutrality” or “neutral,” instead stating that the “interest of the United States require that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers” and concordantly, “citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever which may in any manner tend to contravene such disposition.”

The proclamation further declared that citizens who acted against the direction of the proclamation would not receive protection from the U.S. government if prosecuted in foreign courts for violating the “law of nations” and may face prosecution for the same in U.S. courts. Washington was treading upon murky constitutional ground. Did his proclamation amount to legislation, delegated exclusively to Congress? This question would presently loom large in the next chapter of the drama.

On April 8, a few weeks prior to Washington’s proclamation, Edmond-Charles Genêt, appointed minister to the United States by the revolutionary French government, landed on U.S. soil. However, instead of landing in Philadelphia and proceeding directly to the Secretary of State’s office, Genet landed in Charleston, S.C. and began a six-week journey to the capital. As Hamilton biographer Ron Chernow writes, “Acting more like a political candidate than a foreign diplomat, he was cheered at banquets, and his six-week tour acquired major political overtones.”

Genet was feted and toasted by Republicans at every stop on his tour, leading him to believe the American public was virtually unanimous in its support for American involvement in the war on France’s behalf. Even more troublesome for the administration, Genet carried with him letters of marque from his government to hire U.S. ships to act as privateers against British ships on behalf of the French government.

Jefferson himself, though still supportive of the French Revolution and privately gleeful over the capture of the British ship Grange by a French frigate in a Delaware port, officially supported neutrality and directed Genet to cease outfitting U.S. ships for hostile action against the British. Genet had previously cited the constitutionality of Washington’s proclamation to Hamilton, arguing it usurped a prerogative of Congress.

On July 6, with Washington away from the capitol at Mount Vernon, Genet allegedly informed Alexander J. Dallas, the secretary of Pennsylvania, that not only did Genet reject American neutrality but that he would “appeal from the President to the people,” meaning he considered the people themselves a higher power than the president who could overrule Washington’s proclamation.

Washington took the statement as an insult to himself and the U.S. government and responded by formally requesting the French government recall Genet, which it did in January 1794. Ironically, however, as an even more violent faction had by that time come to power in France and issued an arrest warrant for Genet, Washington eventually granted Genet asylum to save him from the guillotine. Genet married Cornelia Tappen Clinton, daughter of the New York governor, and settled into the life of a gentleman farmer.

Washington signed the Jay Treaty later in 1794 and rendered moot the constitutional question of his neutrality proclamation. But it was by no means the end of difficulties maintaining American neutrality. The Quasi-War with France broke out when privateers began seizing American ships trading with Great Britain, and the controversial Embargo Act was later passed during the Jefferson administration under similar pressures.

Despite these challenges, the young republic managed to avoid involvement in Europe’s wars throughout its first three administrations, and Washington’s foreign policy, articulated in his farewell address, “to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world” became established bipartisan consensus for the next century. Jefferson echoed Washington in his own first inaugural address, calling for, “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

As contentious as domestic politics would be throughout the 19th century, with the Federalists morphing into the Whig Party and eventually the modern Republican Party while Jefferson’s Republicans eventually (mostly) became the modern Democratic Party, this bipartisan consensus endured, regardless of which two parties dominated.

A survey of presidential inaugural addresses throughout the period reveals one president after another, regardless of their positions on other matters, basically saying the noninterventionist foreign policy bequeathed by Washington “ain’t broke, so let’s not fix it.”

The United States became the richest and most powerful country in the world under what would today be termed an “isolationist” foreign policy. And it all began with an affair whose similarity to today’s situation with Ukraine cannot be overstated.

No, Genet was not an official head of state, although he survived the government that sent him during his official visit to the U.S. But he was a foreign minister seeking U.S. military support with overwhelming support from half the American public and suspicion at best from the other half. As in the United States today, supporters of the foreign cause saw it as a fight for liberty while detractors argued the foreign country in question was not worthy of defense.

Like Zelensky, after allegedly insulting the presidential administration, Genet was asked to leave the country (although later given asylum).

Most importantly, Genet’s actions on American soil greatly contributed to a previously uncommitted administration firmly deciding upon American neutrality. One cannot help but wonder if Zelensky’s recent visit will provide the Trump administration with similar cause to drop all pretense of supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia, regardless of mineral or other considerations, and adopt a more unambiguously neutral position.

And will the administration take from this incident that all entangling alliances are inherently against the interests of the American people?