The Rise Of The ‘Gators’ And Its Implications For The Indo-Pacific – Analysis

By Jaehan Park

(FPRI) — The American people chose former president Donald J. Trump once again. For the rest of the world, the most important question is what Trump’s foreign policy will be like in his second term. Often described as “isolationist” by pundits, his foreign policy views hew more closely to “Jacksonianism”—a populist foreign policy named after the seventh president that is largely transactional, somewhat aloof yet, at times, heavy-handed—and the record of his first term somewhat vindicates this judgment. There are some similaritiesbetween the returning president and Andrew Jackson himself, such as their penchant for tariffs, “don’t tread on me” quality, and distrust for the elite.

Yet there is another trend one can glimpse from the composition of the Trump administration 2.0. Whether out of political expediency, strategic deliberations, or mere coincidence, the president-elect announced that several individuals from his adopted state of Florida would assume key roles in his administration. Of importance, from the president on down, key national security posts will be filled with Floridians—most notably Senator Marco Rubio as the Secretary of State and Representative Michael Waltz as the National Security Advisor. Hence, the rise of the “Gators.”

These appointments, in my view, will manifest as a certain kind of Jacksonianism: a focus on their own continent, the Americas. Unlike their predecessors who cut their teeth in the executive branch in Washington, DC, these individuals are from the legislature, which interacts directly with voters who are in turn affected by local geographies. And if, as historian Walter McDougall observed, statespersons’ geographic perceptions have shaped history, these individuals’ own outlook on American geography, informed by these experiences, will likely shape their own perspectives, knowingly or not. Not only is Florida much more conservative than the bicoastal regions where the traditional foreign policy elite comes from—Floridians are also more concerned with hemispheric issues than Eurasia. And this may have important foreign policy ramifications.  

***

The fledgling United States took over what is now Florida from the Spanish Empire in 1819. From the outset, the Florida peninsula was of interest to American statesmen due to its location as a gatekeeper to the Gulf of Mexico. For instance, Thomas Jefferson entertained the idea of purchasing it along with New Orleans. After the Louisiana Purchase, the border between the young republic and the erstwhile Spanish holding became unstable due to frequent skirmishes between the American settlers and the Seminole Indians. In response, Washington ordered Andrew Jackson, then commander of the southern district, to take “necessary measures.” Jackson took the opportunity to not only crush the invaders, but also expel European powers who were backing them—the Spaniards and, to a lesser extent, the Brits—for good. The resultant annexation of Florida coincided with the period during which the burgeoning republic under the stewardship of James Monroe and John Quincy Adams pursued a strategy to undermine European powers’ influence in the Western Hemisphere—most notably exemplified by the Monroe Doctrine. Incidentally, Jackson was appointed as the first military governor of Florida.

The annexation of Florida in effect secured the southeastern flank of the United States. More importantly, as geographer Donald Meinig described, this new territory brought attention to Cuba—a key Spanish holding in the Caribbean. Thereafter, Cuba became a thorny issue in the debate over American foreign policy since the mid-19^th century. By the end of that century, the United States resolved the issue by expelling the Spaniards from the Caribbean for good. In 1898, the Spanish-American War broke out over the explosion, supposedly caused by the Spaniards, of USS Maine harbored at Havana to protect American citizens and properties on the island amidst a civil war that had been going on between the Spanish colonists and the indigenous population of Cuba.

The Spanish-American War was an important milestone in the history of American foreign relations. During the war, the difficulty of moving ships between the Atlantic and the Pacific became pronounced, which rekindled the debate over the isthmus canal and ultimately resulted in Theodore Roosevelt’s support of Panamanian independence from Colombia several years later. Most importantly, although America’s initial casus belli was the emancipation of Cubans who had been persecuted under Spanish rule, the war in the Caribbean ultimately led to America’s involvement in the Far East by way of the annexation of the Philippines. It also acquired a set of islands leading to the erstwhile Spanish holding: Hawaii, Guam, and Wake Atoll. Previously, American concerns in the Pacific had been mostly commercial. With the annexation of the Philippines, however, Americans now had territorial and security stakes in the region. In other words, the control of Florida and its adjacent seas laid the foundation for America’s rise as a global power and its involvement with the broader world—especially what is now called the Indo-Pacific.

***

Often, major foreign policy debates revolve around which frontier the country should focus on. In our time, the Republicans are split among three groups: libertarian-isolationists, or “restrainers,” who favor a much reduced presence around the globe; “primacists”—more commonly known as neoconservatives—who advocate for a continued forward presence in all three key regions of Eurasia (Europe, the Middle East, and Asia); and finally, the self-described realists who are calling for concentration of efforts on the Indo-Pacific front—hence the moniker “prioritizers.” What all these groups share—perhaps with the exception of the first one—is their focus on Eurasia; the Western Hemisphere, in contrast, has been put on the back burner in recent years.

While neglect of the Americas might have made sense given the benign circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, the geopolitical situation is calling for a rethink. America’s southern border is increasingly porous, through which illegal immigrants as well as deadly substances, such as fentanyl, flow. Drug cartels are not only bringing in narcotics, but also engaging in other heinous crimes, such as arms dealing and human trafficking. Aside from these nontraditional issues, hostile great powers have taken advantage of America’s neglect to exert influence in the region. For instance, Moscow signed a set of agreements with Caracas earlier this month, strengthening cooperation on intelligence and energy fronts. Similarly, Iran has maintained security ties with the region, either directly or vicariously through Hamas. Most importantly, China has been operating spy stations in Cuba and making significant investments in the rest of the region—exemplified most recently by the funding of a billion-dollar, deep-water port in Peru.

The state of Florida is exposed to Latin America and the Caribbean more than the bicoastal regions—especially the Acela corridor and the Bay Area, which have deeper ties with Europe and Asia. For instance, South/Central America and the Caribbean were Florida’s largest market in 2023; in contrast, Asia was the largest market for both California and New York. In terms of population, Hispanics represent almost 30 percent of Florida’s population—far above the national level (approximately 20 percent). Unlike elsewhere, where Mexicans constitute the majority, however, Hispanics of Cuban origin account for the largest portion in Florida. Not surprisingly, their views are very different—more conservative than their southern brethren, if you will. Given their number, this has state-wide effects; in fact, Florida is more conservative than the rest of the country.

***

Seen in this light, the rise of the “Gators” may be hinting at the possibility of a change in America’s policy in the Western Hemisphere. Senator Marco Rubio’s anti-communist stance, originating in part from his Cuban-American background, and its possible consequences on America’s Latin America policy are widely discussed. Representative Michael Waltz was one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill to deploy U.S. military to root out drug cartels in Mexico; he has advocated for an “updated Monroe Doctrine” in the Western Hemisphere to deal with cartels, energy security, and Chinese influence. It should be noted that his wife and fellow Floridian, Julia Nesheiwat, served as the homeland security advisor in the first Trump administration. Susie Wiles, Trump’s top campaign manager and chief of staff nominee, has deep ties with Florida politics, which may result in additional nominations of Floridians. The president-elect himself has made the southern border front and center of his campaign agenda; also, he was very critical of the Clinton administration’s attempt to normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba. He reversed much of the Obama administration’s Cuba policies during his first term.

What are foreign policy implications of the rise of the “Gators”? First, the Western Hemisphere will figure more prominently in American foreign policy. This is truer given that hemispheric issues permeate domestic, economic, and foreign policies. The president-elect’s threat to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico to stop the influx of migrants and narcotics may prove to be an opening salvo of more heavy-handed approach in the Americas. Second, relatedly, this may at times result in rocky situations—for instance, between Washington and Mexico City. On the other hand, America might have an opportunity to make supply chains more secure, especially the sourcing of critical minerals or the production of semiconductors. More often, however, the result will be mixed. On Venezuela, for instance, the new administration will have to strike a delicate balance of interests concerning energy, strategic diplomacy, and migration. Even the author of The Art of the Deal will have to settle for less at times.

Third, this focus on hemispheric issues, combined with America’s increasingly limited resources as well as the president-elect’s penchant for dealmaking, may result in America’s “deprioritization” of less important regions. As of this writing, the U.S. national debt has reached approximately $35 trillion, out of which over $1 trillion were spent to cover interest payments—exceeding its defense budget earmarked at slightly over $800 billion. While brighter military minds will disagree, the new administration might want to tie loose ends on economic grounds. In fact, in his recent interview, Waltz already hinted that the incoming Trump administration would focus on the Western Hemisphere after quickly settling the ongoing conflicts in Europe and the Middle East. After all, no power can exert influence abroad without having secure peripheries.

Looking at the Indo-Pacific, this may present both challenges and opportunities. While both Senator Rubio and Representative Waltz have been known as “China hawks,” this does not mean that they would be easy on America’s regional allies crucial to deterring China. In fact, they may demand more financial, military, or other contributions, reflecting their principal’s well-known complaints about allied band-wagoning. That is, America’s allies may now have to turn their attention to the Americas to find ways to help the United States deal with these hemispheric issues, while taking on larger military roles in their respective theaters. Even so, they should confront the reality that America remains the best guarantor of their security and prosperity—at least better than the alternatives. And now it has problems in its own neighborhood. In the age of the “Gators,” therefore, U.S. allies across the Indo-Pacific would do well to keep in mind the old adage: “A friend in need is a friend indeed.”

• About the author: Jaehan Park is a Non-Resident Fellow with the FPRI Asia Program as well as an Assistant Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore
• Source: This article was published by FPRI