iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 17/06/2026

On Monday, June 22 at 1pm ET, I'll be participating in a webinar with @pbfritz.bsky.social to discuss his essay on my book "The Insiders' Game: How Elites Make War and Peace" @princetonupress.bsky.social. Current events might come up? Join us! Register here: us06web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...

Webinar information for book discussion with Elizabeth Saunders and Paul Fritz, June 22, 1-2pm ET.

2269

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 11/06/2026

There's the fog of war, and then there's this. Basic communication and trust breakdown from the US government to (1) itself [important for fighting wars!] and (2) its citizens. via @shipwreck75.bsky.social

Conflicting reports from Trump and an unnamed US official on whether strikes are ongoing or soon to be over.

416753

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 12/05/2026

Don't believe me? This is the opening paragraph (published in @intsecurity.bsky.social in '08 but written several years before that).

Opening paragraph of Caitlin Talmadge's article "Closing Time": Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz tops the list of global energy security nightmares.1 Roughly 90 percent of all Persian Gulf oil leaves the region on tankers that must pass through this narrow waterway opposite the Iranian coast, and land pipelines do not provide sufficient alternative export routes.2 Extended closure of the strait would remove roughly a quarter of the world’s oil from the market, causing a supply shock of the type not seen since the glory days of OPEC.
Even if the strait were not closed in the sense of being physically barricaded, military confict in the area could cause prices to skyrocket in anticipation of a supply disruption—and to remain high until markets could be assured that the flow of commerce had been restored.

2409

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 07/05/2026

What the president of the United States says matters. Both of these communications are sickening.

45216

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 07/05/2026

Wait, you mean Trump and Rubio’s dismantling of US diplomacy is making the Iran War harder? Who could possibly have foreseen… goodauthority.org/news/trump-a... via @shipwreck75.bsky.social

920442

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 05/05/2026

Deleted this because I hadn't clarified this was from November 2024, right after the election. Part of a slide from last year's lecture in my American foreign policy class.

0142

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

So @cnn.com says Trump passport only avail in person in DC. Some could choose to get one. Apart from everything else wrong with this, doesn’t seem great for democracy to have people display political loyalties on a document used for entry and proof of citizenship. www.cnn.com/2026/04/28/p...

From CNN.com:

The US will soon begin issuing passports featuring an image of President Donald Trump inside, a State Department official said Tuesday.

The official said that the passport “will be the default passport out of the Washington Passport Agency when available” for those who renew their passports in person at that location.

“Online options or other locations will maintain existing passport design,” the official said.

1624060

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 22/04/2026

Thanks @unlawfulentries.bsky.social for sharing your book at @siwpscolumbia.bsky.social today. Immigration is a load-bearing issue for current events, and we don't integrate it enough into the study of war and peace. Learned so much from this book. See below for access to intro and discount code.

Anna O. Law delivers a talk on her new book, "Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship," at the Saltzman Institute at Columbia

0247

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

This graph using @gallup.com data, which I discuss in my book "The Insiders' Game," shows what I mean. Dems only top R's once, at nadir of Iraq war, and never crack 50%. A lot of variation in events over that period! Note also decline in "no opinion/no difference," likely reflecting 📈polarization.

Graph of Gallup data on a single question over time from 2002-2020, broken down by answer (Republicans, Democrats, or No Opinion/No Difference). Question reads, "Looking ahead for the next few years, which political party do you think will do a better job of protecting the country from international terrorism and military threats, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?"

2104

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 06/04/2026

And luckily for us, the Iranians were very clear in calibrating their escalatory moves over the years, as in the above 2019 case, and in the response to the 2020 Soleimani killing. Trump seemed to get the message then and declared "all is well!" when the Iranians struck a US base. 3/

Trump twitter post from January 7, 2020 after Iran struck US bases in Iraq, in retaliation for the US strike that killed Iranian General Qasim Soleimani: "All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning."

226823

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 26/03/2026

This this this. Serious high -level talks come at the end, not at the beginning or whenever Trump wants.

“The Iranians would not engage in high-level meetings with the U.S. until and unless they know that he’s going to make concessions to them.”

2211

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 24/02/2026

For wonks: this paper (drawn from my book) shows w/ an experiment how a hawkish adviser publicly opposed to war can raise the stakes for a Republican president. Graph shows "fighting premium/penalty," by the adviser's type and if s/he supports/opposes force. 1/ journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

Figure taken from Saunders, "Leaders, Advisers, and the Political Origins of Elite Support for War," showing the fighting premium/penalty (in terms of public support) for using force if a hawkish/dovish advisers supports/opposes force.

1316

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 25/01/2026

If he doesn't, not only will history remember, but his words from the 50th anniversary of Selma will ring hollow.

We gather here to honor the courage of ordinary Americans willing to endure billy clubs and the chastening rod; tear gas and the trampling hoof; men and women who despite the gush of blood and splintered bone would stay true to their North Star and keep marching towards justice.

1363

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 25/01/2026

And if you choose not to go to Minneapolis, this photo better not appear in your presidential library.

Obama commemorating the 50th anniversary of Selma

010

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 24/01/2026

Hegseth's signature in the National Defense Strategy looks like "PB&J" and I can't unsee it. Also, if it's Dept. of War, isn't this the National War Strategy? Also also, the rules-based order is a "cloud-castle abstraction"? Pretty sure first rule is "don't take territory by force," very concrete!

Image of the signature page of the National Defense Strategy, with Hegseth's signature looking like "PB&J"

57523

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 24/01/2026

The great @dandrezner.bsky.social, scholar of diplomacy and national security at a university from which the U.S. government snatched a student off the street for an op-ed, on Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the nation’s top diplomat and National Security Advisor: open.substack.com/pub/danieldr...

For reasons I cannot entirely articulate, however, Rubio’s bald-faced lie will stick with the rest of my days. I don’t care what foreign policy horrors he might have averted behind the scenes. I really don’t. What I do know is that this man approved a rendition based on no real evidence, trampled on the first amendment, and then lied about what he had done.

417058

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 21/01/2026

Updating lecture slides, I came across this photo from Trump 1.0 that I used to discuss alliances. From G20 in Hamburg, 2017. Looking at it now is...a journey. Look who's in the back right (in his capacity as the head of the Financial Stability Board). Via European Commission (link in alt-text)

Family photo from G20 in Hamburg, 2017, via European Commission. Names listed here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2017_G20_Family_picture_(03).jpg

2175

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 21/01/2026

Some of Trump's less-dramatic options: 4/

A president disposed to undermine NATO could take many diplomatic and military actions unilaterally that would harm—perhaps even paralyze—the alliance. At the diplomatic level, for example, the president could decide not to appoint an ambassador to NATO. Additionally, the president could decide not to send his secretaries of state and defense and other officials to meetings of NATO defense ministers and foreign ministers or working-level meetings where much of NATO’s business gets done. Congress could haul administration officials in for questioning, but it has lost much of its inclination and capacity to conduct oversight of foreign policy in recent decades.

1121

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 20/01/2026

📣📣📣Announcing...Chalkboard Politics @chalkboardpolitics.bsky.social, a podcast by students, for students (and their teachers). Written, edited, and mixed by the students at @siwpscolumbia.bsky.social and distributed by @goodauth.bsky.social. 1/ www.podbean.com/media/share/...

27130

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 19/01/2026

📣📣📣Teaser!📣📣📣 Everything is terrible, but the kids are alright. Something new is coming this week from @siwpscolumbia.bsky.social via @goodauth.bsky.social. Stay tuned!

0203

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 05/01/2026

There is also a huge body of excellent work on the dual internal and external threats dictators face (links below). But my favorite source on this is a letter to President Kennedy from John Kenneth Galbraith, then Amb. to India, on South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem, in Nov 1961. 4/

From Galbraith to JFK, Nov. 21, 1961 : "In my completely considered view, as stated yesterday, Diem will not reform either administratively or politically in any effective way. That is because he cannot. It is politically naive to expect it. He senses that he cannot let power go because he would be thrown out. He may disguise this even from himself with the statement that he lacks effective subordinates but the circumstance remains
unchanged. He probably senses that his greatest danger is from the
army. Hence the reform that will bring effective use of his manpower,
though the most urgent, may be the most improbable."

From https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674528376

319316

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 05/01/2026

🧵Day 3 and we have a new meaning for "running Venezuela," courtesy of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the nation's top diplomat, who is in charge of Venezuela as well as the National Archives. We're going to insist they do what's in the US national interest. Time for some principal-agent theory. 1/

From State Dept transcript of Rubio appearance on This Week w/ George Stephanopolous:

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, we’re not going to judge moving forward based simply on what’s said in press conferences. We want to see action here at the end of the day. Rhetoric is one thing. You see rhetoric for a lot of different reasons. There’s a lot of different reasons why people go on TV and say certain things in these countries, especially 15 hours or 12 hours after the person who used to be in charge of the regime is now in handcuffs and on his way to New York.

So what I will say is, moving forward, it’s very simple. We’re not going to be reactive here to statements at press conferences or what people say in a certain interview or what some media post – some media post somewhere. What we are going to react to is very simple: What do you do? Not what you’re saying in public – what happens? What happens next? Do the drugs stop coming? Are the changes made? Is Iran expelled? Is Hizballah no longer able and Iran no longer able to operate against our interests from Venezuela? Does the migration pattern stop? Do the drug trafficking boats end? Do you deal with the ELN and the FARC, two narcoterrorist organizations who control territory and operate with impunity from the territory of Venezuela against the interests of Colombia and the United States?

These are the things we want addressed. If they are addressed, that’s how we’ll judge it. If they’re not addressed, that’s how we’ll judge it.

QUESTION: And what happens if they’re not addressed?

15476202

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 23/12/2025

The Party of National Security in 2 headlines

Two headlines in the New York Times, one on the recall of 30 ambassadors, the other on the new “Trump-class” warships

516342

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 15/12/2025

In fairness, the article is more nuanced than this headline, especially the end, which acknowledges that hollow peace deals won't last and few are left at Rubio's State Dept to implement them. 2/

"Even if a deal does get done, it will be the true experts who work out the fine print — and make sure it lasts. Absent follow-through, the most grandiose efforts will not be enough to end the carnage. Getting two sides to a yes is only part one.

But who will be there to finish the job? The everyday work of career officials has dramatically diminished. The State Department’s annual human rights reports have been pared down to the point of futility. The staffing level of the National Security Council has been reduced so significantly that it has led to open dysfunction. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, now also the acting national security adviser, has fired hundreds of State Department experts and members of the senior diplomatic corps."

2453

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 29/11/2025

When 2-factor authentication is just too much of a pain

“Afterward, one European official asked Witkoff to start speaking with allies over the secure fixed line Europe’s heads of state use to conduct sensitive diplomatic conversations. Witkoff demurred, as he traveled too much to use the cumbersome system.”

1204

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 25/11/2025

Aside from all the current damage Trump is raining down on the country and the world, the long-term implications are bleak. Even if a future president wanted to return the US to a leadership role, the economic and political foundations are structurally weakened. 7/

diminished.71
But the implications of an unconstrained United States go beyond whether it is willing to engage in this kind of international leadership in the future and how other countries might react. Unlike the transition after Trump’s first term, a future president who wants to recommit to a strong US role in global governance may find the country lacks the capacity to do so. If the behaviors that led to the United States’ sterling reputation for sovereign debt repayment are undermined by this instability and unpredictability, the foundation of US economic and military power may crumble.

1100

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 25/11/2025

What does it mean? Well, if you take all the findings on democratic advantages since the end of the Cold War and invert them, that's a good guide to the new world we're in. 6/

To understand the implications of these changes for global governance and order, consider the thought experiment of inverting prior scholars’ findings about the democratic advantage and domestic audience constraint. For example, the inverse of Cowhey’s “credibility advantage” suggests that in the absence of domestic political institutions, US commitments to multilateral institutions of any kind are unreliable. Martin’s work, inverted, suggests that without legislative or other constraints on the executive, multilateral economic sanctions will be further undermined. Lake’s early work on the democratic peace suggests that an unconstrained United States will be more likely to become involved in wars it is less likely to win, and potentially more expansionist in ambition. Leeds’s emphasis on democratic alliance reliability can be inverted to suggest that the United States will now be a less reliable partner. Similarly, the consistency of foreign policy commitments will also be undermined.

191

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 25/11/2025

It is not just global retrenchment, it's the ability to provide public goods at home that have spillovers abroad. Science & tech, defense, state capacity, credible commitments -- the things that we thought democracies had advantages in, gone. 3/

Abstract: Any theoretically informed predictions about the future of international order and global governance must reckon with the power and intentions of the United States.We argue that fundamental changes in the nature of domestic audience constraint within many democracies, and the United States in particular, undermine both the
willingness and the capability of the United States to continue its role as the underwriter of international order and global governance. A US government unbound by domestic constraint will have difficulty building broad coalitions to solve national and international problems because it will have reduced incentives to invest in public
goods, including national defense, science and technology, and future economic prosperity; reduced barriers to corruption that undermines the quality of and trust in US capabilities; and reduced state capacity, including the capacity to finance wars and other long-term international commitments. We argue that three trends were especially
relevant in reshaping domestic audience constraint: information fragmentation, extreme polarization, and a global threat environment that facilitated executive power concentration. Together they reduce the costs and risks for leaders to escape domestic audience constraints, weakening the institutional and accountability mechanisms that give democracies advantages in the international system. Though these trends affect many democracies, the undermining of US domestic constraint is particularly consequential because the United States shaped and buttressed the current system. An unconstrained United States likely means a less cooperative and less predictable global order, irrevocably altering the post-1945 system.

2110

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 18/11/2025

And here's Rubio, in December 2018 calling for punishing Saudi Arabia with more than a "diplomatic slap on the wrist." He's now the nation's top diplomat, maybe he could do something about that? A reporter should ask him. www.cnn.com/2018/10/16/p...

“We lose our credibility and our moral standing to criticize (Russian President Vladimir) Putin for murdering people, (Syrian President Bashar Al-)Assad for murdering people, (Venezuelan President Nicolas) Maduro in Venezuela for murdering people,” Rubio said. “We can’t say anything about that if we allow Saudi Arabia to do it and all we do is a diplomatic slap on the wrist.”

0174

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 18/11/2025

And here's Graham threatening to hold up legislative business until CIA director Gina Haspel testified. www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/u...

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a stalwart supporter of President Trump in recent months, vowed to freeze the administration’s legislative priorities until Ms. Haspel spoke to the Senate.

“I’m talking about any key vote. Anything that you need me for to get out of town, I ain’t doing it until we hear from the C.I.A.,” Mr. Graham told reporters after the 90-minute briefing at the Capitol.

He also promised there would “be no business as usual with Saudi Arabia” if American intelligence confirmed that Prince Mohammed was involved in Mr. Khashoggi’s killing. One United States official said that was precisely why the administration did not want Ms. Haspel to participate in the briefing.

2154

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 15/11/2025

There’s a lot of evidence that diversionary war is not really a thing. But if I were Venezuela right now… www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/u...

“The only thing missing is a strategic explanation from the Trump administration that would clarify why the United States is amassing such a large force. Mr. Hegseth's posting on X was only the latest in a series of statements from administration officials that, at best, are in tension with one another. Some are outright contradictory.”

68719

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 31/10/2025

The quotes in this story...this is not a video game.

“Maduro is about to find himself trapped and might soon discover that he cannot flee the country even if he decided to,” the source said. “What’s worse for him, there is now more than one general willing to capture and hand him over, fully aware that one thing is to talk about death, and another to see it coming.”

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article312722642.html#storylink=cpy

22412

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 15/10/2025

The masterstroke was to force Netanyahu to apologize to the Qataris. Not just the call, but releasing news of the apology, with a photo. Kudos to whoever thought of that. It was a costly signal from Bibi and showed Trump was seriously pressuring Israel. 5/ www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u...

Photo released by the White House showing Netanyahu on the call, apologizing to the Qataris, while Trump balances the phone on his lap.

271

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 30/09/2025

So much for the foreign policy justification of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the nation's top diplomat, whose interviews are extensive quoted in the opinion:

"It is also arbitrary or capricious because it reverses prior policy without reasoned explanation or consideration of reliance interests, and is based on statutes that have never been used in this way."

2212

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 30/09/2025

This does not mince words about how Rubio and Noem misused the powers of their office to chill free speech. Undiplomatic and now, ruled unconstitutional.

For all these reasons, this Court finds as fact and
concludes as matter of law that Secretaries Noem and Rubio and
their several agents and subordinates acted in concert to misuse
the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of
their First Amendment protected political speech. They did so
in order to strike fear into similarly situated non-citizen proPalestinian individuals, pro-actively (and effectively) curbing
lawful pro-Palestinian speech and intentionally denying such
individuals (including the plaintiffs here) the freedom of
speech that is their right. Moreover, the effect of these
targeted deportation proceedings continues unconstitutionally to
chill freedom of speech to this day.

22716

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 18/08/2025

🧵So this Trump post gives it away. Whatever this mysterious "Article 5-like" security guarantee Wittkoff mentioned, it'll be worth the paper it's printed on (and left on a hotel printer. 1/

Trump post on Truth social: "President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight. Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea....and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!"

2398

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 06/08/2025

News from the Federal Register: the State Department Historical Advisory Committee’s functions, including oversight of the Foreign Relations of the United States series, transferred to the Assistant Secretary of Administration.

Federal Register announcement of delegation of authority from Historical Advisory Committee to the Assistant Secretary for Administration

183

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 08/07/2025

Public wants moderate policies (secure border & path to citizenship, no dumb wars but fight necessary wars). But moderate policies will miss some calls, and hawkish turn won't help with the very sticky reputation on this issue. Don't believe me? Look at D reputation on natsec despite many D wars. 7/

Graph of Gallup responses from 2002-2020 to question, "Looking ahead for the next few years, which political party do you think will do a better job of protecting the country from international terrorism and military threats, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?" D's never crack 50% and top R's only once, at nadir of Iraq War.

165

Elizabeth N. Saunders @profsaunders.bsky.social · 27/06/2025

As @stevenmazie.bsky.social notes here, it means issues that are truly national will be handled in a crazy patchwork. Congress is the missing institution here.

“Which means a baby born in NY to undocumented parents will be a citizen. But a baby born to undocumented parents in Kentucky will not be a citizen. This is madness.”

24420