Assigned into teams of three or four, students were given an area of strategic competition to focus on for the duration of the class, such as computing power, semiconductors, AI/machine learning, autonomy, space, and cyber security. In addition to readings, each group was required to conduct interviews with key stakeholders, with the end goal of producing a memo outlining specific policy-relevant insights about their area of focus.

But the final project was only part of the grade. The instructors also evaluated each group based on how they had used AI to form their analysis, organize information, and generate insights.

“This is not about replacing true expertise in policymaking, but it’s changing the nature of how you do it,” Volmar emphasized.
 

Expanding Students’ Capabilities

For the students, finding a balance between familiar habits and using a novel technology took some practice. 

“Before being in this class, I barely used ChatGPT. I was definitely someone who preferred writing in my own style,” said Helen Philips, an MA student in International Policy and course assistant for the class.

“This completely expanded my understanding of what AI is possible,” Philips continued. “It really opened up my mind to how beneficial AI can be for a broad spectrum of work products.”

After some initial coaching on how to develop effective prompts for the AI tools, students started iterating on their own. Using the models to summarize and synthesize large volumes of content was a first step. Then groups started getting creative. Some used AI to create maps of the many stakeholders involved in their project, then identify areas of overlap and connection between key players. Others used the tools to create simulated interviews with experts, then use the results to better prepare for actual interviews.
 

For Jackson Painter, the class provided valuable practice combining more traditional techniques for developing policy with new technology.

“I really came to see how irreplaceable the interviewing process is and the value of talking to actual people,” said Jackson. “People know the little nuances that the AI misses. But then when you can combine those nuances with all the information the AI can synthesize, that’s where it has its greatest value. It’s about augmenting, not replacing, your work.”

That kind of synthesis is what the course instructors hope students take away from the class. The aim, explained Volmar, is that they will put it into practice as future leaders facing complex challenges that touch multiple sectors of government, security, and society.

“This is a new type of policy work,” he said. “It's accelerated, and it increases the depth and breadth students can take in. They can move across many different areas and combine technical research with Senate and House Floor hearings. They can take something from Silicon Valley and combine it with something from Washington. It's an extraordinary thing.”

Real-time Innovation

For instructors Blank, Felter, and Volmar, classes like “Technology, Innovation, and Great Power Competition” — or sister classes like the highly popular “Hacking for Defense,” and the recently launched “Entrepreneurship Inside Government” — are an integral part of preparing students to navigate ever more complex technological and policy landscapes.

“We want America to continue to be a force for good in the world. And we're going to need to be competitive across all these domains to do that. And to be competitive, we have to bring our A-game and empower creative thinking as much as possible. If we don't take advantage of these technologies, we’re going to lose that advantage,” Felter stressed.

Applying real-time innovation to the challenges of national security and defense is the driving force behind the Gordian Knot Center. Founded in fall of 2021 by Joe Felter and Steve Blank with support from  principal investigators Michael McFaul and Riita Katila, the center brings together Stanford's cutting-edge resources, Silicon Valley's dynamic innovation ecosystem, and a network of national security experts to prepare the next generation of leaders.

To achieve that, Blank leveraged his background as a successful entrepreneur and creator of the lean startup movement, a methodology for launching companies that emphasizes experimentation, customer feedback, and iterative design over more traditional methods based on complex planning, intuition, and “big design up front” development.

“When I first taught at Stanford in 2011, I observed that the teaching being done about how to write a business plan in capstone entrepreneurship classes didn’t match the hands-on chaos of an actual startup. There were no entrepreneurship classes that combined experiential learning with methodology. But the goal was to teach both theory and practice.”
 

That goal of combining theory and practice is a throughline that continues in today’s Gordian Knot Center. After the success of Blank’s entrepreneurship classes, he — alongside Pete Newell of BMNT and Joe Felter, a veteran, former senior Department of Defense official, and the current center director of the GKC — turned the principles of entrepreneurship and iteration toward government.

“We realized that university students had little connection or exposure to the problems that government was trying to solve, or the larger issues civil society was grappling with,” says Blank. “But with the right framework, students could learn directly about the nation's threats and security challenges, while innovators inside the government could see how students can rapidly iterate and deliver timely solutions to defense challenges.”

That thought led directly to the development of the “Hacking for Defense” class, now in its tenth year, and eventually to the organization of the Gordian Knot Center and its affiliate programs like the Stanford DEFCON Student Network. Based at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, the center today is a growing hub of students, veterans, alumni, industry experts, and government officials from a multiplicity of backgrounds and areas of expertise working across campus and across government to solve real problems and enact change.

Prepared for Diverse Challenges

In the classroom, the feedback cycle between real policy issues and iterative entrepreneurship remains central to the student experience. And it’s an approach that resonates with students.  

“I love the fact that we’re addressing real issues in real time,” says Nuri Capanoglu, a masters student in Management Science and Engineering who took “Technology, Innovation, and Great Power Competition” in fall 2024.

He continues, “Being able to use ChatGPT in a class like this was like having a fifth teammate we could bounce ideas off, double check things, and assign to do complex literature reviews that wouldn't have been possible on our own. It's like we went from being a team of four to a team of fifty.”

Other students agree. Feedback on the class has praised the “fusion of practical hand-on learning and AI-enabled research” and deemed it a “must-take for anyone, regardless of background.”

Like many of his peers, Capanoglu is eager for more. “As I’ve been planning my future schedule, I’ve tried to find more classes like this,” he says.

For instructors like Felter and Volmar, they are equally ready to welcome more students into their courses.

“Policy is so complex now, and the stakes are so high,” acknowledged Felter. “But what we’re seeing in these classes is a passion for addressing real challenges from students who may not have otherwise thought they have a place at the table of national security or policy. That’s what we want. The best and brightest future policymakers are going to have diverse skill sets and understand how to leverage every possible tool and capability available to meet those challenges. So if you want to get involved and make a difference, come take a policy class.”

A Pivotal Moment for Climate Policy

In early May, Israel faced its second major wildfire in a month, as flames tore through the woodlands around Jerusalem, forcing the shutdown of the central region and the cancellation of Independence Day celebrations. Conference Chair, Professor Alon Tal, Visiting Fellow in Israel Studies and a leading environmental advocate, explained that once a rare occurrence, such fires have become far more frequent, reflecting a broader international pattern.

“In the past, fires of this magnitude maybe happened once a decade,” Tal noted. “But like California, Israel’s fire service now reports a tripling of high-risk fire days — ultra-dry conditions paired with high winds. This is an international phenomenon. This past year, Canadian fires destroyed 45 million acres of woodlands — seven times the annual average. Israel has received a wake-up call about the impacts of the climate crisis.”

Across two days of programming, the conference will bring together 25 Israeli experts to discuss potential solutions alongside colleagues from Los Angeles and California. “This is not just a policy conversation. This is about how we prepare our communities for an uncertain future,” Tal said. “Both Los Angeles and Tel Aviv are confronting real environmental risks, but they also have the innovation ecosystems and civic infrastructure needed to respond creatively. We have a lot to learn from studying them side by side.”

Comparing Los Angeles and Tel Aviv offers scholars and policymakers unique insights, Tal believes. “These are two of the most creative cities in the world. They both have thriving tech sectors and liberal city governments with resources and professional expertise. At the same time, they face comparable challenges: they are both dryland cities on rising coastlines, where heat waves are becoming more treacherous. Bringing their top experts together at Stanford has tremendous merit.”

Rethinking Climate Governance at the City Level

Tal emphasized that local governments are increasingly bearing the burden of climate adaptation, especially in societies marked by inequality and demographic complexity. “The changing climate brings new challenges that cities need to be ready for. And they aren’t,” he said. “Most people live in cities — they need the tools (and the budget) to reduce new risks. The LA fires have left enormous human suffering in their wake, just like the climate-driven floods in New Orleans, Houston, and New York City did. So, the question is: what steps should cities take proactively to avert disasters and maintain stability?”

While Tal emphasized the immediate environmental threats, Larry Diamond, Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and director of the Visiting Fellows in Israel Studies program, framed the discussion within a broader governance context. “It is often said that ‘all politics is local,’ and there is a policy corollary to that. While we need national policies and international coordination to reduce fossil fuel emissions and accelerate the transition to renewable energy, the challenges of climate adaptation and resilience are also deeply local and must be met at that level. This is a great opportunity for all of us to learn from two cities on the front lines of the challenge in our respective countries — Tel Aviv and Los Angeles.”
 

A Vision for Collaborative Learning

The event also reflects the broader goals of Stanford’s Visiting Fellows in Israel Studies program, launched in 2023 to foster cross-disciplinary analysis of Israel and its unique position as a regional influence and geopolitical actor. The program appoints an Israel-based scholar to serve as a visiting fellow at FSI for a recurring three-year term. The fellow will teach courses related to some aspect of Israel’s politics, society, economy, modern history, technological development, and/or regional or international relations, as well as advise students and collaborate with faculty interested in Israel and the Middle East.

Diamond emphasized the significance of the conference in fulfilling the program’s mission. “One of our key goals in the Israel Studies Program is to engage scholars, policymakers, and civil society leaders in Israel, not only individually but collectively based on their expertise. And we seek to promote functional and scholarly interaction and mutual learning. This conference is a historic opportunity to advance this mission in the realm of climate resilience.”

Tal also highlighted the significance of hosting the conference at Stanford. “Stanford has become the world’s leading academic center for researching critical ecological problems like biodiversity and climate change. The Doerr School of Sustainability and the involvement of Nobel laureate Steven Chu as a keynote speaker make this an unparalleled opportunity for collaboration.”

Building a Lasting Impact

Tal hopes the conference will catalyze new approaches to addressing climate impacts. “It’s clear that new environmental conditions require new strategies and technologies. Seeing practical solutions firsthand is crucial, but they don’t matter without policies that enable cities to step up their climate mitigation game. Success stories need to be shared.”

The conference outcomes will be documented in a special issue of the academic journal Sustainability, ensuring that insights resonate beyond the event itself. “By focusing on urban policies and highlighting both successes and failures, we aim to chart pathways for cities to live with global warming while mitigating emissions to address the root causes,” Tal said.

Diamond further expressed his hopes for the conference’s impact. “We hope participants will not only take away specific ideas and strategies from the two cities and countries but also connections that can be of mutual practical value going forward. We want to underscore that Israel and California, with their similar climates and start-up cultures, have a particularly rich set of possibilities for collaboration and mutual learning.”

Community members and members of the public are invited to participate in this pivotal conversation. To view the full agenda and register, visit the conference website.

Sophie Ankeles, California
During a visit to my extended family in Japan, a cousin asked me if Americans really wear shoes indoors. Since my family is strict about taking our shoes off before entering our house, I assumed every house in America did the same. I announced with all the authority a seven-year-old could that, no, Americans do not wear shoes indoors and it was ridiculous to think so. Later, my mother revealed the shocking truth: some Americans actually do wear shoes indoors. This rocked my entire worldview. Was I American? What did it mean to be American if so many Americans disagreed on this fundamental custom? Since then, I’ve come to realize that in making this mistake, I’d stumbled upon the answer: America is a place where anyone, shoes on or shoes off, can make themselves feel at home.

I’ve also come to learn that America has deeper divides than footwear customs; some run so deep that many Americans may never see eye to eye. But just as it’s both true and false that Americans wear shoes indoors, we don’t need everyone to have the same opinions or even understand everyone else’s point of view to be part of the same community. This beautiful embrace of our sometimes contradictory culture is the core of what it means to be American.

Enzo Balbuena, California
To me, being an American means having the chance to chase my goals, but also recognizing that not everyone gets that same opportunity. As a swimmer on a national-level team, I’ve learned how much hard work and determination matter. But I also know that some people face challenges that make it harder to reach their dreams. Being an American means using my voice, standing up for what’s right, and supporting others. It’s about embracing the diversity around me and understanding that we all have different experiences. Just like in swimming, progress takes effort—and I believe being American means working together to build a fairer and more inclusive community.

Matthew Curran, New York
To me, being an American means being anything and everything. The metaphor of a “melting pot” reiterated throughout history instantly comes to mind because there is just one rule for being an American: there are no rules. As a descendant of Irish immigrants, I would not exist if there were truly requirements for being an American, and although there were times when some tried to create their own requirements, the spirit of America prevailed. Despite the efforts of those who would enforce the famous “No Irish Need Apply” attitudes (primarily in the mid-19th century), a Catholic cathedral named after the patron Saint of Ireland now spans an entire New York City block. My ancestors and the ancestors of many others refused to allow others to make their own rules, which is what makes being an American special.

Kristina Danilenko, North Carolina
I had the honor this year of attending my mother’s naturalization ceremony, a milestone not only for her, but for countless other families in the room. During the Oath, I saw expressions of joy, tearfulness, and reflection on the faces of these future Americans. Despite obstacles they may have faced, they persevered in their dreams of living out liberties sadly not afforded to many. As a Ukrainian American, I won’t shy away from sharing my disillusionment with current American politics. But I choose to believe in the fundamental ideals which have both guided millions to the United States and encouraged millions more to address injustice when these ideals have faltered. To be American is to act in hope for the pursuit of what can be, in recognition of our many imperfections.

Vivian Luo, Pennsylvania
For most of my childhood, being “American” felt like the easiest thing in the world. It meant school lunches, celebrating Christmas, and waiting for the ever-evasive toothfairy. I didn’t think much about what it meant for my parents, who had left everything behind in China for the “American Dream”—language, family, stability—for the mere possibility of a better life for their children. The Dream has always been advertised as the inevitable outcome of hard work. In truth, it’s become far more complicated. There’s uncertainty, with the growing presence of ICE, of deportations, of neighbors being labeled as outsiders. Sometimes, the Dream feels more like an unfulfilled promise. To me, being American means realizing how lucky I am to be here, and always working to build better lives.

Mooreoluwape “Lupe” Oloyede, Texas
To me, being American, especially as the child of Nigerian immigrant parents, means living at the junction of two cultures and creating something new from that mixture. It’s celebrating the Fourth of July with grilled suya and gold sparklers, or switching between Yoruba and English during dinner conversations. It’s recognizing my parents’ sacrifices while shaping an identity that reflects both where they came from and who I’m becoming. It’s the ability to carry the values of hard work and community passed down from generations of Nigerians, while embracing the diversity, opportunity, and freedom that define the American experience. Being American is the freedom to define my own identity, not as one or the other, but as both.

Haohong Ren, Hawaii
I come to this question as a Chinese immigrant who was only naturalized in 2020 after four whole years of waiting for my certificate. Coming to America has so far been the most drastic change I’ve ever experienced. Without a doubt, this experience is not only educational but it also opens a new door to an entirely new world full of opportunities, and most importantly, full of different people with different skin colors, cultural backgrounds, and values. To me, being an American means accepting others and welcoming them with open arms, trying to understand them and learning from each other. America was basically built by immigrants, so we have to value everyone’s ideas and the contribution they make. We can also understand and acknowledge where we came from and be proud of our roots. Being an American means valuing diversity and upholding the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone.

Erin Tsutsui, California
When I think of America, I associate it with arms. This homonymous word captures the essence of America, as it means both physical open arms for one another, the tangible ideal of holding each other’s hands and always being united—as well as the evident usage of arms to harm one another, the 2nd amendment and the recurrence of violent outrage from it. I believe America is amazing in the way that people from all different backgrounds can come together with open arms to work towards a harmonious society. However, there are still many things to mend and reconstruct from the past and present without the use of weapons. Our call to arms should be to redeem ourselves with collaboration of peoples of all stripes, not to overwhelm one group or another with force. Being American, we need to embrace the duality of our nation and move to the better angels of our nature. Let us climb the hill together, each with our own uniqueness and individuality, but in collaboration with each other through the goal of positive change.

The unveiling of the Bracero Legacy Mural took place on April 18, 2025 in Chualar, in the Salinas Valley of Monterey County. The mural honors all Bracero workers and remembers the 32 Bracero workers who tragically lost their lives and the 22 Bracero workers who survived in a train collision in Chualar, on September 17, 1963. Dr. Ignacio Ornelas Rodriguez, a historian whose research has focused on the Bracero Program, shared the following:

The Bracero Program was a series of laws that allowed the United States to recruit temporary guest workers (braceros, lit. “individuals who work with their arms”) from Mexico. As the United States entered World War II, its agriculture and railroad industries witnessed a shortage of laborers due to the U.S. military draft and the forced removal of Japanese Americans from the West Coast of the United States. The United States and Mexico entered into legal agreements that would ultimately be known as the Bracero Program, which operated from 1942 to 1964. Braceros worked throughout the United States, but the largest concentration of Braceros was employed in California. There were an estimated 4.5 million contracts signed by Braceros over the 22-year period. Today a large proportion of the Mexican American population can trace its heritage to former Braceros.

Image

The Bracero Legacy Mural (above) was painted and designed by contemporary artist Hanif Panni and sponsored by the Arts Council of Monterey County; photo courtesy Monterey County Supervisor Luis Alejo. The mural depicts a man standing in the lettuce fields of the Salinas Valley and an image of the bus that was hit by a train on September 17, 1963. Research for the mural was based on Ornelas Rodriguez’s study of the Ernesto Galarza papers at Stanford. Ornelas Rodriguez, whose grandfather was a Bracero, has spent the last 15 years studying and analyzing Galarza’s personal papers, which Galarza donated to the Department of Special Collections, Stanford University Libraries. Included in the collection are numerous files about the accident and subsequent investigations that Galarza conducted for Congress. They also include his correspondence with various families of victims and survivors. Most recently Ornelas Rodriguez has been working to locate more of the families connected to the accident.

Image

Ornelas Rodriguez has spoken for many years about the possibilities of a mural dedicated to Braceros with Monterey County Supervisor Luis Alejo, an American politician who served in the California State Assembly representing the 30th Assembly District, encompassing the Pajaro and Salinas valleys. Alejo initiated conversations with the Monterey County Arts Council, which eventually approved support for the Bracero Legacy Mural. Alejo appears in the center of the photo above. Left to right: Monterey County Supervisor Chris Lopez; Artist Hanif Panni; Monterey County Supervisor Luis Alejo; Consul General of Mexico, San Jose, Alejandra Bologna; and Ignacio Ornelas Rodriguez; photo courtesy Dr. Ignacio Ornelas Rodriguez.

I was touched by the heartfelt comments that all of these people shared during the unveiling ceremony and felt a very strong emotional connection to the Braceros who were present for the ceremony because I spent my childhood—as a farm laborer and son of migrant farmworkers and sharecroppers—working with Braceros from the 1950s. I also felt ties to being in the Salinas Valley because that is where my family lived and worked prior to the outbreak of World War II. As mentioned by Ornelas Rodriguez, the forced removal of Japanese Americans from the West Coast of the United States—most of whom were farm workers—was one of the chief reasons for the establishment of the Bracero Program. I recommend that teachers introduce the Bracero Program—and Mexicans and Mexican Americans in the U.S. agricultural workforce broadly—to students and suggest that they consider using a lecture by Ornelas Rodriguez titled “Visualizing the Essential: Mexicans in the U.S. Agricultural Workforce.”

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

Evolving negotiations over the war in Ukraine; uncertainty about the unity of NATO; increased transatlantic mistrust. There is a seeming divide growing between the United States and Europe, and that could have major impacts on future security on both sides of the Atlantic.

James Goldgeier, a scholar of European security, NATO, Russia, and Ukraine and a research affiliate at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, joins the institute's director, Michael McFaul, on the World Class podcast to discuss what's happening, and why. 

Watch the video version of their conversation above, or listen to the audio below, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or other major podcast platforms. 

TRANSCRIPT:

McFaul: You're listening to World Class from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. I'm your host, Michael McFaul, the director of FSI. Today I'm joined by Jim Goldgeier, research affiliate both at the Center on Democracy, Development and Rule of Law and the Center on International Security and Cooperation here at FSI.

Jim is also a professor at American University, but most importantly, he's a co-author with Michael McFaul on many things, including a book about U.S. policy towards Russia after the Cold War. He also has written extensively on European security, NATO, Russia, and Ukraine. And given what's going on in the news, Jim, I didn't think there could be a better person to chat about all those things. From when we planned this a couple of weeks ago till today, there's actually been a lot of news. 

So why don't we just start with the latest in terms of the negotiations. And then I want to pull back to this broader picture. Really, by the end of our conversation today, I want to know, is there a future for transatlantic security partnerships and the future of NATO? But let's go micro first and then we'll end with that macro. So tell us what's going on as to the best of you can figure it out in terms of these alleged peace negotiations to try to end the war in Ukraine. Tell us what you think is going on and how well you think it's going.

Goldgeier: Well, first of all, thanks for having me on. It's great to be with you and lots of tough issues to talk about, including this one. And I think it's just worth people remembering that, you know, a real negotiation process would be one in which, especially if the United States was really playing a central role in negotiations, in which the US negotiator was going back and forth between the Russian president and the Ukrainian president and trying to figure out how to really resolve some super tough issues, particularly regarding how Russian occupied territory is going to be treated. Even if Ukraine has to accept that for now it can't control that territory, it shouldn't be asked to have to recognize that territory as Russian. And Russia wants, of course, that that territory be recognized as Russian. So a negotiator would be going back and forth. That's not happening.

There isn't a real negotiation. Also in a real negotiation, both sides would be asked to make concessions. Vladimir Putin isn't being asked to make concessions. And he still has the same maximalist goals he had at the beginning of this war. He wants a Ukraine that's basically a subsidiary to Russia. Even if he doesn't conquer the whole thing, he doesn't want it to be independent and sovereign. He doesn't want it to be Western oriented. He wants it under his thumb.

McFaul: Right.

Goldgeier: He wants a new government, a government that he would control. And it would really be incumbent on the United States to explain to him why that's not going to happen. But so far, he hasn't been asked to make concessions, and he also wants Ukraine not to have any military capability to defend itself in the future.

McFaul: So lots of things I want to pull on there if we have time. What do you think the Trump strategy is? Why is he not being asked to make any concessions?

Goldgeier: I think the basic problem comes down to the fact that it just appears that Donald Trump views Ukraine as a nuisance. And he views President Zelensky as a real nuisance. We saw that in the Oval Office meeting. Zelensky's like, you know, we need some security guarantees, otherwise how can we agree to anything? And you know, to Trump, this is all just a nuisance. He wants it to go away. He wants to be able to have a quick victory. I achieved a ceasefire.

Goldgeier: I said I would, I did, and then he can move on to something else. He doesn't care whether Ukraine has peace or not. He doesn't care whether Ukraine's government survives or not. And he has this weird affinity for Putin. We've seen it since 2017 and before. He admires the guy. He wants to hang out with the guy. He wants to do deals with the guy.

McFaul: Right.

Goldgeier: He clearly doesn't want to press him. And so that's not a good recipe for a solution to what is a very serious situation that Russia created.

McFaul: That doesn't sound like a good strategy to me either, I agree. But help Americans understand why it matters. Maybe there are other people that think, well, why do we care about Ukraine? Maybe it is a nuisance, right? What are the bigger interests for America at stake in this negotiation?

Goldgeier: Well, I think we do have to go back to what this country has decided to believe in and support since the end of the Second World War. I mean, we fought a second world war. We fought a war against countries that had used their militaries to go into neighboring countries, take territory that wasn't theirs, and created conflict. That was a big war, a world war.

McFaul: Yeah.

Goldgeier: And we decided at the end of that that we were going to try to create a system internationally that would either prevent those things from happening or impose real costs on countries that try to break that order. And we did that, for example, in 1991 when we went to war against Iraq, which had invaded Kuwait in 1990, and George H.W. Bush put together an international coalition to push the Iraqis out of Kuwait.

And that was something we stood for. We saw it as in our security. And I would argue it is in our security to live in that kind of world. Who wants to live in a world where countries can just go in and take territory from their neighbors, because you don't know whether they're going to keep going. And we have an interest in security and stability in Europe. So when Putin invaded, we supported the government of Ukraine, along with our European allies and other allies as well.

South Korea, for example, which has played a big role in supporting the Ukrainians. And I would say, you know, this is one of the things that's, I would use the word problematic, but it's so far beyond that, about the Trump administration is his own discussion about taking the territory of Greenland, which he said in front of a joint session of Congress, we're gonna take one way or the other. Well, you know.

That's the same thing. You're threatening to use military force to take something that doesn't belong to you. In that case, it belongs to an ally, I mean, a NATO ally. So it's even worse. So, you know, is that the world Americans want to live in? Where powers use military force that way and create the kind of conflicts that led us into a world war previously that was pretty significant for the United States. I don't think Americans want to go through that again.

McFaul: Great explanation. We should study that history so we don't have to repeat it, right? Tell us a little bit about how this is playing in European capitals, these negotiations, right? It was striking to me, for instance, when there was the first meeting with the Russians, Lavrov and Ushakov in Saudi Arabia, and on our side of the table, Secretary Rubio was there, National Security Waltz was there.

But at the other end of the table, there were no Ukrainians, of course. To your point, there's no shuttle diplomacy nor is there direct negotiations. But there were two Saudi officials sitting there. There weren't two Europeans sitting there. How is this playing out as the Europeans observe what is going on, but also are now starting to take actions on their own towards what they might do separately and apart from us vis-à-vis Ukraine?

Goldgeier: It's tough for the Europeans because they are dependent on the United States for their security. They're going to be trying to get out of that situation as best they can because they now, and we can get into that, see that the United States is now an unreliable ally for them. So that puts them in a very different situation than they've been in since the end of the Second World War.

McFaul: Right.

Goldgeier: They don't really have a choice but to stay engaged and to support Ukraine because Putin's Russia remains a threat to them. As long as Vladimir Putin keeps talking about territory that's not his as being subject to potential Russian aggression, they have to worry about what his ambitions might be. They don't really know. They know he has these grand visions of himself as a world historical figure in Russia like Catherine the Great and Peter the Great. And so he's a threat to them. They would love to be able to do this as they had been doing prior to January 20th. They would love to be supporting Ukraine militarily and trying to help it achieve peace that enables Ukraine to remain a sovereign and independent country.

But if they can't do it with the United States, they're going to do everything they can to do it themselves. And so they're going to stand, they're going to help send Ukraine what they can and potentially put troops in Ukraine, although that's a very complicated issue. But they want Ukraine to know that Europe is there for it. And I think they now recognize that they can't count on the United States on this or really much anything else. And so they have to adjust accordingly.

McFaul: And are you impressed by what they're doing collectively or does it seem kind of slow and difficult because you don't have NATO doing this all together? Is the glass half empty or half full, I guess is what I'm asking.

Goldgeier: I think it's half full because I think we just have to accept that they don't have the same capabilities that the United States does. I mean, it's just a fact. They know it. Now they're very aware of it. For example, intelligence capabilities. I mean, this is something the United States has been able to provide to Ukraine. They just don't have the same intelligence capabilities, and that would take them a long time to develop.

They have some defense production capabilities and they're trying to ramp that up as quickly as possible and they're trying to provide what they can. It's not enough, but I am impressed with the urgency that they do feel and the ways in which they're thinking, okay, we can't count on the US anymore. How are we going to take care of our own security in Europe as Europeans? And in that regard, how can we best support Ukraine so that we can stop Putin there so that he doesn't get tempted to do it elsewhere.

McFaul: Let's open the aperture a little bit wider, just talk more generally about transatlantic relations, not just Ukraine. It seems like there's been some pretty big shocks to this relationship. I'm thinking first and foremost about the speech that Vice President Vance gave at the Munich Security Conference, where he lectured all the Europeans about how badly they're doing with their practice of democracy. There's then been the tariffs, of course, and there's been hints that we might be pulling our troops back. You can update us as to whether that's real or not, but give us your update on transatlantic relations in the first hundred days of the Trump administration.

Goldgeier: So JD Vance, his speech in Europe at the Munich Security Conference, also his efforts on behalf of the far right AFD party in Germany interfering in the German elections to support an extremist party, was definitely a wake up call for the Europeans. I think even more than what we're seeing with respect to Ukraine, this was a sign that the United States is not an ally anymore. Donald Trump treats the European Union as an adversary. He talks about how it was created to screw over the United States. By the way, the United States was strongly supportive of building a more united Europe. That was true for post-war presidents who thought it would be great for Europe to be more united as a partner with the United States.

McFaul: And that turned out to be true, right? I mean, that was a pretty good investment. 

Goldgeier: It was true. It's been true. Great trading partners, great military partners. They're great partners. And now we're telling them, you know what, we don't see you as a partner anymore.

McFaul: Right.

Goldgeier: First Trump term, the Europeans sort of tried to just tell themselves they would just get through those four years, hoping things didn't go hugely terribly and that they could get through it. And they did.

And I think a lot of them with Trump winning this second time in 2024 thought initially, okay, maybe we could just get through these four years again. And I think now they're recognizing that this is just a different situation, the kinds of people that Trump had around him as advisors, as national security advisors, as secretaries of defense, they don't have that, you know, what were termed adults in the room in the first Trump administration. He's unleashed. He clearly hates Europe. I mean, I just think this is just a longstanding belief he has that they've taken advantage of the US. He's treating them as an adversary. 

The tariff situation is, I think, the most serious because it's basically telling the Europeans, we're going to make it harder for you to trade with the US. And what that's going to do is cause the Europeans, as they're currently doing, to look elsewhere. I mean, this is the general problem for US foreign policy right now is, you know, nobody likes a bully. He is a bully. But other countries have to pursue their interests. So if they can't do that in concert with the United States, they're going to figure out other ways to do it. 

The trade agreement that was the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Trump walked away from in his first term, well, the other countries in that TPP reformed it as a different entity. And Europe now is interested in figuring out how to get in. Europe's interested in figuring out with Australia how to form a free trade agreement.

Goldgeier: They're actively looking elsewhere… 

McFaul: Without us involved, right? 

Goldgeier: …without us, because they can't count on us and they don't know. You know, he put 25 % tariffs on steel and aluminum. He's got 10 % tariffs worldwide. There's a possibility he's going to go up to 20% with Europe. They don't know. He's unreliable, he's unpredictable, and they have got to start making other calculations. And so they're going to do that.

McFaul: That's sobering. And on the military side too, tell us a little bit about what you see happening within NATO and other conversations of European security architecture outside of or next to NATO.

Goldgeier: I think the two really big issues for us to watch and think about, one is Europe's own defense production. In the world we've lived in, Europe could buy military equipment from the United States. You want F-16s, you want F-35s, you can buy from the US. Europeans now are thinking, all right, we don't want to do that anymore. American defense companies are going to lose through this because the Europeans don't want to put themselves into that dependence situation anymore. So they are developing their own systems. And while that will take time, these are rich economies. They've got technological capabilities. A lot of it's going to be whether or not countries can work together in terms of developing new fighter aircraft, which they've already started doing and they're starting to...

McFaul: The Europeans have?

Goldgeier: The Europeans are doing this. They're finding markets in the Middle East, for example. I think this is going to be bad for the United States. And I would think Lockheed Martin and Boeing and others are going to the Trump administration and saying, this isn't going to be good for us. So that's one thing to watch, just that defense production. And then the other, as you were just mentioning, is institutionally, how does Europe do this?

McFaul: Yeah.

Goldgeier: You know, NATO has existed all this time since 1949 with the United States as its undisputed leader. The United States has been the major power in Europe. There's always been an American who's been the supreme allied commander in Europe, the SACUR. This is the military official who oversees the military operations for NATO and that person has always been an American. With the Trump administration, there's been grumblings about maybe not wanting to do that anymore. 

We don't know whether Trump really would fully withdraw from NATO or whether the United States would just have less of a presence and I think the real question and I don't know the answer to it is, can NATO function without that US leadership? Can the other countries of NATO, there are 32 countries in NATO, can they work together within that organization that's been set up without the United States having much of a presence? I mean, we haven't been in that situation before, so we just don't know.

I mean, the European Union isn't really set up to do what NATO does. So I think it's still a hugely open question. And I believe we will see lots of sessions at think tanks in America and in Europe on the future of European security and re-imagining European security and trying to understand this. It's just uncharted waters.

McFaul: Right. Say a little bit, again, in the same question I had about Ukraine. So why should Americans care, right? Europeans haven't been spending much on defense, as you alluded to. I think we agree they probably should have been doing more. And maybe had we started that conversation earlier, we wouldn't be here. I'm not convinced of that, but some people make that argument. 

There's a more extreme argument that you hear from Trump administration officials and Trump himself is like, let the Europeans take care of Europe. We got to take care of Asia. Putin, that's their problem. What's the downside of the breakdown or weakening of NATO from America's national interests?

Goldgeier: I'd say two things to that. One is just that… Of course, Europeans have been spending more and of course they should have been spending even more. And I do think Joe Biden was wrong. The first thing he said when he came back in was, to the Europeans, America is back. Which basically led many of them to think, okay, phew, we don't actually have to do a lot more. When we should have taken those four years to really put this on a better path because I think the United States should have less of a presence in Europe. 

They are rich countries. We don't have to do everything for them as we have in the past. They know, they should know that by now, but we should do it in partnership with them. We could still be partners with them, even if we're doing less.

McFaul: And why is that important from your perspective in terms of America's national interests? That partnership versus just go at it alone. We'll be in charge of North America. They'll be in charge of Europe. What's wrong with that kind of thinking?

Goldgeier: You never know when you're going to need your friends. So I think it's good to have friends. I mean, one of things that's been an advantage for the United States in the world compared to countries like Russia and China is we have lots of friends. We have allies. They're there for us. When we asked them to join us in Afghanistan, they were there. They came. A lot of them lost lives, had troops that were killed.

And the other thing is, actions in one part of the world have implications in others. There's a reason in the last three summits that the countries, the so-called Indo-Pacific Four, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, the heads of state and government from those four have come to the NATO summits the last three years and presumably are coming to the one this summer. They see these linkages. They see the importance of Ukraine. South Korea has been providing artillery to Ukraine because they don't want Putin to succeed in Ukraine because they don't want to see the signal that will send to Xi Jinping regarding Taiwan and regarding potential Chinese aggression more broadly in the Western Pacific. 

So, countries are definitely watching. And I just think from a U.S. perspective — and I do think most Americans understand this — it is good to have friends. We have good, strong friends who've been with us and we can explain why they're gonna need to do more and I think the Europeans have gotten the message and are gonna try to do more, but it should be with us and not against us. Why do we need them as an adversary? We already have other adversaries. 

McFaul: Yeah. We have serious adversaries. 

Goldgeier: We don't need to make our best friends adversaries.

McFaul: And wasn't it Churchill who said, or I'm paraphrasing the word, the only thing worse than going to war is going to war alone? I think he's said something along those lines. 

Goldgeier: Right. Yeah.

McFaul: So Jim, last question. Tell us about the future. Speculate a little bit about, is this the end or, and just maybe focus on NATO, because we don't have time to talk about all the institutions, or if they survive and muddle along for the next four years, is there a possibility of renewal of these transatlantic security relationships, a renewal of the NATO alliance?

Goldgeier: Well, I hope we could renew a transatlantic partnership between the United States and Europe. The problem is the Europeans now know that the United States is not reliable. We had Trump one, we had Joe Biden, we had Trump two. They can't keep bouncing back and forth. If we have another president like Joe Biden after Donald Trump, who wants to rebuild things with Europe, they still have to be thinking, okay, we don't know what's gonna happen four years later. Is J.D. Vance going to come and start yelling at us, talking about how pathetic we are as he did in the signal chat? I mean, in my view, NATO as a collective defense organization that at its core has the United States there to help defend the member states. I don't believe the Europeans can count on the United States in the future to defend them.

And I think that given that that is the core of NATO, I think NATO as we've known it is finished. What NATO can be, the different thing it can be, more European organization, less US, we don't know how that's gonna play out. But as an organization where the United States was fundamentally there and saying, we are with you in collective defense, I think they know Donald Trump's not going to defend any country in Europe. And they don't know whether a future president would or wouldn't. And so I think they have to adjust accordingly.

McFaul: Well, we can't end on that sobering note. Give us one piece of hope for the future of transatlantic relations, US-European relations, long term, even if you have to go way into the future.

Goldgeier: Well, I think long term Americans and Europeans will still want to, I mean, as peoples, I think the peoples will still want to be partners with each other. So it's just getting the governments back to reflect what the populations would like to see.

McFaul: Okay, we can’t end on that horrible end note that the feature is over. I think the thing you had is really true. I think that our societies are connected and we have shared values. We're part of a democratic world and you and I travel to Europe all the time and they want that connection. I think that's a thing that the Trump world sometimes wants us to convince the world that nobody wants America. That's definitely not my feeling when I travel. And in Asia too, by the way. I would say they want an American presence. So that gives us something to chew on and work on in the future. 

Jim, thanks for being on World Class. Great to have you. 

Goldgeier: Thanks for having me.

McFaul: You've been listening to World Class from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. If you like what you're hearing, please leave us a review and be sure to subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts to stay up to date on what's happening in the world, and why.

The following is a guest article written by Wenxin Fu, a student from China studying at the Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies at Waseda University in Japan. Wenxin enrolled in the 2025 SPICE/Stanford–Waseda Intensive Course: Exploring Peace in East Asia and Beyond Through the Lenses of Cultural Understanding, Education, and International Relations, which was organized by SPICE and Waseda’s Faculty of Social Sciences and taught by Meiko Kotani. The course brought together students from the Graduate School of Social Sciences, the School of Social Sciences, the Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies, the School of International Liberal Studies, and the School of Political Science and Economics. With participants from Japan and international students representing 10 different countries, the course created a truly dynamic and diverse learning environment.

If I had to pick out a few moments that reshaped how I see things, two come to mind. The first was in what seemed like an ordinary seminar classroom in the UK where I experienced, not exactly a cultural shock, but a striking contrast between the student-led discussions there and the education system I grew up with in mainland China. The second is this time, through the 2025 SPICE–Waseda program, where I encountered not just diversity, but a sense of collaborative equality, where difference didn’t translate into distance or hierarchy.

In both instances, I was far from my home country—surrounded by faces of different colors, speaking my second language, and engaging in conversations that ranged from broad theoretical questions to concrete, real-world issues. But the experiences felt very different. Back then, I was trying hard to blend in, to insert myself into a conversation shaped by others. I wanted a seat at the table, not just physically present, but to be part of the actual dialogue. This time, however, diversity felt less sharp, less hierarchical. Skin color didn’t map onto power relationships, and the usual lines between who’s “in” and who’s “out” felt blurred. I felt more comfortable speaking up, and more importantly, I felt genuinely heard.

I think this contrast also speaks to a commonly criticized tendency in international relations theory to center the dominant voices of the world’s most powerful countries. There’s now a growing emphasis on the globally relevant, rather than the globally dominant. That’s why this program’s focus on East Asia resonated so deeply with me, not only because I’m from the region, but because I’m eager to engage with perspectives and lived experiences that reflect the richness and complexity of the region. These are stories often told less loudly, but no less powerfully. This aligns with what we were often encouraged to do throughout the course: to anchor our reflections in personal experience.

And it’s also why I want this reflection to stay personal.

To be honest, even after a full semester as an international relations major, I still struggle to articulate anything truly meaningful about shifting global dynamics, geopolitical tensions, or the strategic calculus of major powers. Coming from a media studies background, I often feel I lack the kind of structural, macro-level thinking that international relations seem to require, and I’m rarely confident in how I speak about it. But still, one thing is clear to me: we don’t need to be experts to understand how important peace is. It’s not just a theory, it shapes our everyday lives and connects all of us through our shared hopes and fears. While international relations theories often emerge in response to crisis, it’s peace that fills most of our time on this planet. And peace isn’t just the pause between wars. It’s something that takes effort, patience, and long-term commitment. That’s what we should really be focusing on.

Image

When we ask ourselves how to contribute to something as vast as peace, I found this course offered both clarity and encouragement. It didn’t stick only to traditional international relations theories themselves, but brought in topics like cultural understanding, education, migration and mobility, and identity. Each day added a new layer, helping me connect big ideas to real-life issues. Looking back at the course title, I noticed the word “intensive.” I was mentally prepared for five days packed with lectures, seminars, group work, and a final project under pressure. But what I encountered was something else entirely. There wasn’t pressure to impress—just space to think and share. The assigned readings were meaningful but not overwhelming, and the discussions felt open and welcoming. I showed up, I listened, I reflected, I exchanged. I was inspired, not in bursts, but in a steady, unfolding way. Ideas moved, and so did I. That was the most rewarding kind of intensity for me.

I’m grateful for the way this program was designed, for the freedom to move at our own pace, and to learn in a space that felt both focused and generous. Thanks not only to my teammates, but also to the organizers who made this possible. Our group included undergraduates, master’s, and PhD students. I had concerns at first that our different nationalities, academic backgrounds, and levels of experience might lead to friction. But as we worked together on the contemporary challenges related to peace-building, I saw something quietly powerful: a shared spirit of curiosity, openness, and care. What moved between us was real peace and love, flowing quietly in the smallest units, from one person to another, and beyond.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

As the global geopolitical landscape shifts and the United States redefines its role on the world stage, Japan, its closest ally in the Asia-Pacific, faces mounting expectations and emerging opportunities. In recognition of this critical juncture, APARC’s Japan Program and the United States-Japan Foundation convened a timely symposium at Stanford University, Recalibrating U.S.-Japan Collaboration in a Time of Tumult. The event brought together scholars, policymakers, and practitioners to explore how U.S.-Japan relations are adapting to new global realities. Over the course of five thematic sessions, participants engaged in a dialogue that spanned foreign policy, international trade, social governance, civil society, and even the cultural diplomacy of baseball.

📄  Get the event highlights below

📹  Watch the symposium sessions on our YouTube channel >

🔗  Read Nikkei coverage of the event >

📧  Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our event invitations and guest speaker insights >

The opening session, “Global Democracy, Foreign Aid, and Regional Security: As the U.S. Pulls Back, Will Tokyo Step Up?,” featured Larry Diamond, Mosbacher Senior Fellow of Global Democracy at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, Shinichi Kitaoka, former Japanese ambassador to the United Nations and past president of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), along with APARC Japan Program Director Kiyoteru Tsutsui. Together, they examined Japan’s potential to assume a greater leadership role in defending democratic norms and providing regional public goods in an era of American retrenchment. The discussion underscored both Japan’s growing capacity and its constitutional and cultural constraints.

In the second session, “How Tariffs and Trade Wars are Reshaping the Indo-Pacific,” Wendy Cutler of the Asia Society Policy Institute and Peter Wonacott of the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability reflected on the disruptions facing global trade. Drawing on their experience in economic policy and journalism, respectively, they traced how protectionist policies and decoupling strategies are altering regional supply chains. Their analysis emphasized the importance of maintaining open trade flows while also reinforcing economic resilience across the Indo-Pacific.

The third session, “The Future of DEI, ESG, SDGs: Will Japan Follow the U.S. or Stay the Course?,” focused on evolving norms around corporate and social governance. Keiko Tashiro, deputy president at Daiwa Securities Group, joined Gayle Peterson of Oxford’s Saïd Business School and Stanford sociologist Patricia Bromley to evaluate whether Japan’s institutions will align with American trends or continue along a distinct trajectory. Panelists discussed Japan’s historically unique approach to equity and sustainability, noting the domestic implementation of global frameworks such as the UN-sanctioned Sustainable Development Goals.

The fourth session, “Redefining the Relationship Through Civil Society: Burden Sharing, Knowledge Sharing, Picking up the Slack,” included remarks from Mike Berkowitz of the Democracy Funders Network, Laura Deal Lacey of the Milken Institute, and Jacob M. Schlesinger, president and CEO of the United States-Japan Foundation, who explored how non-state actors are increasingly stepping in to fill voids left by governments. The conversation highlighted the growing role of philanthropic networks and think tanks in shaping bilateral cooperation, particularly in areas such as disaster response, democratic resilience, and public diplomacy.

Capping the day’s proceedings was the session titled “Diamond Diplomacy Redux: Baseball as a Bilateral Bridge.” Featuring Stan Kasten, president and CEO of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and Yuriko Gamo Romer, director of the documentary “Diamond Diplomacy,” the discussion viewed U.S.-Japan relations from a cultural diplomacy perspective. The two reflected on the enduring symbolism of baseball in forging people-to-people ties, illustrating how shared pastimes can foster mutual understanding even amid geopolitical uncertainty.

The symposium served as a vital platform for reassessing the U.S.-Japan alliance in a period marked by shifting global norms. As the international system undergoes profound change, the panelists indicated that the robust partnerships must evolve not only through diplomacy and defense but also across the realms of trade, governance, civil society, and cultural exchange.

The following is a guest article written by Makoto Nagasawa, who traveled to the San Francisco Bay Area with other graduate students from the University of Tokyo—under the leadership of Professor Hideto Fukudome—in January 2025. Makoto is also an Associate Professor at Saitama University. SPICE/Stanford collaborates closely with the Graduate School of Education at the University of Tokyo and met with the students during their visit to the Bay Area.

In a contemporary world where knowledge is instantly accessible and the digitalization of education is accelerating, the value of gathering in physical spaces and learning together is being re-evaluated. The intensive seminar on international and cross-cultural education held in the San Francisco Bay Area in late January 2025 vividly demonstrated the unique appeal of in-person global education and the potential for learning that digital platforms alone cannot replicate.

This seminar—a collaboration between the Center for Advanced School Education and Evidence-Based Research (CASEER) at the University of Tokyo and SPICE at Stanford University—was not merely a venue for acquiring knowledge but a precious opportunity for participants to encounter the world through direct exposure and gain new perspectives through interaction with others. The firsthand experience of the current state of elite higher education institutions in the Bay Area, a bastion of liberalism, was an invaluable lesson in understanding live social dynamics.

On the first day at Stanford University, SPICE experts shared a wide range of insights on international and cross-cultural education. Among these, Mariko Yang-Yoshihara’s lecture, which utilized Stanford Professor Ge Wang’s video, provided participants with a stimulating experience to deeply consider the “creation of learning” from non-traditional approaches that transcend existing frameworks. Furthermore, the in-person workshops based on digitally pre-assigned tasks served as an interactive learning environment where first-time participants could share their knowledge and experiences and deepen discussions, fostering a sense of solidarity that is difficult to achieve online. The direct dialogue with Gary Mukai and other SPICE members proved to be of great significance in infusing academic knowledge with real-world context and building human connections. During the sessions at Stanford (photo below courtesy Makoto Nagasawa) students’ laptops were open, and their minds even more so as learning came alive at Stanford with SPICE experts at the table.

Image

Moreover, visits to cultural areas such as San Francisco’s Chinatown, San Jose’s Japan town and the Japanese American Museum, and the Angel Island Immigration Station were indispensable experiences for connecting knowledge learned in the classroom with the realities of society. In particular, encountering the history of Japanese Americans and the hardships faced by immigrants provided an opportunity to deeply understand the historical experiences of different communities and the complex paths through which present-day society has been shaped. During Gary’s tour of San Jose’s Japan town, he helped to bring the history of Japan town to life by asking the students to compare old photos—page by page—from the early 20th century to the present-day buildings and surroundings; photo below courtesy Makoto Nagasawa.

Image

“The only source of knowledge is experience,” as Einstein said, a quote mentioned during Professor Stephen Murphy-Shigematsu’s lecture at Stanford. This highlights that experience gained by being present in a place and engaging all five senses remains crucial in grasping the essence of learning, even in today’s increasingly digital world. The sense of presence and enthusiasm gained through co-learning in classrooms, direct dialogue with faculty and fellow participants, and fieldwork are the unique appeals of in-person education that cannot be fully experienced through online-only education.

Through this overseas intensive seminar, participants reaffirmed the significance of the physical presence of universities, the importance of learning together in person, and the value of walking the world with their own feet and experiencing it directly. Even as digital tools evolve, the deep learning and acquisition of diverse perspectives that arise from human interaction are the wellspring of wisdom and power to navigate the complexities of modern society. 

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

China’s rise as a global power has ushered in a period of strategic flux marked by renewed great power competition, heightened geopolitical uncertainty, and intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. As China's economic and military capabilities have grown, so too have concerns about its long-term intentions, raising the stakes for states attempting to interpret and respond to its foreign policy behavior. In this volatile environment, the ability of states to credibly signal peaceful or aggressive intentions has become a central concern for policymakers and scholars alike. Misunderstandings can escalate into costly miscalculations, especially amid shifting power dynamics, unstable preferences, and growing competition for influence.

Understanding states’ signaling behavior is the research focus of Brandon Yoder, a 2024–25 Stanford Next Asia Policy Fellow at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC). Yoder is a senior lecturer at the Australian National University’s School of Politics and International Relations and the Australian Centre on China in the World. He is also a non-resident research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Centre on Asia and Globalisation.

While at APARC, Yoder is working with the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL) on projects as part of its research track on shared and varying perceptions in U.S. relations with regional actors in Asia. His research investigates how states communicate their intentions under uncertainty and how these signaling processes shape the prospects for peace or conflict. Combining formal modeling with historical and empirical analysis, Yoder seeks to illuminate how credibility is constructed, interpreted, and contested in strategic interaction, focusing on Chinese foreign policy and U.S.-China dynamics.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive updates from our scholars >

When Theory Meets Practice: Modeling Signaling and Testing It Empirically

Much of Yoder’s research aims to bridge the gap between abstract theory and pressing policy questions. One focus is the ongoing evolution of great power competition and how China's behavior can be better understood through the lens of signaling theory. Yoder applies theoretical findings to Chinese foreign policy to examine “how China can credibly signal its intentions and how others can figure out China's intentions, with an eye toward managing great power competition.”

Yoder’s academic journey began with a long-standing curiosity about China. “I always had an interest in China dating back to high school. It was obviously important but not covered much, so I was curious about it,” he reflects. After college, a few years spent teaching English in China deepened that curiosity and helped build the language skills that would become instrumental in his research. Graduate school provided the theoretical structure for his inquiry, and the challenges of understanding credibility in international politics led him to formal modeling. “In grad school, I became interested in how China could credibly signal its intentions, which led me to game theory,” he recalls. “I essentially taught myself the method over a long period of trial and (tons of) error.”

Now, his work weaves together a rigorous theoretical approach to general questions with applications to specific, policy-relevant problems in U.S.-China relations. Despite the appeal of elegant theoretical models, the empirical realities of signaling are anything but simple. Yoder identifies three key challenges in studying the phenomenon.

“One is that you have to formalize your theories, or else you can't possibly keep straight the complexities of rational belief formation mechanisms,” he explains. This realization led him toward game theory.

A second issue is the gap between rationalist models and human behavior. “Actors are not fully rational in their beliefs, so real-world signaling deviates systematically from rationalist predictions. These psychological and rational mechanisms interact in complex ways,” he adds, noting that some of his work tries to integrate both perspectives.

The third challenge lies in measurement. “Beliefs are hard to measure, which makes empirical work very difficult. You can't just use a large-N dataset,” he explains. In response, his empirical approach blends historical case studies with experiments to evaluate how signaling works in specific instances and at the population level.

At SNAPL, Yoder has continued developing several key projects. One model examines how alliance politics are shaped by fears of abandonment or entrapment, concerns that can inhibit alliance formation altogether. Another investigates how rising powers, facing multiple international audiences, can credibly signal peaceful intentions through diplomatic statements, offering insight into the triangular dynamics between the United States, China, and Russia since World War II.

Yoder’s recent work broadens his empirical scope. One survey experiment explores how Australian national identity shapes public attitudes toward China. Another paper argues that war between the United States and China over Taiwan may be less likely than often assumed. A third project develops a model of how smaller Asian states can help moderate U.S.-China competition by avoiding firm alignment with either power. Across these diverse topics, the through line remains the same: understanding how intentions are communicated or miscommunicated between states.

Academic Community and Next Steps

Yoder describes his time at APARC as both intellectually stimulating and refreshingly collaborative. “Mostly just being around really good people, having engaging discussions, and getting feedback” has been a major boost to his research, he says. Conversations with scholars like Jim Fearon and Ken Schultz have sharpened his theoretical thinking, while connections with Center Fellow Oriana Skylar Mastro have deepened his understanding of cross-strait dynamics. He’s also enjoyed working closely with fellow SNAPL postdocs and visiting scholars, and credits their informal discussions as particularly energizing.

SNAPL, directed by Professor Gi-Wook Shin, is an interdisciplinary research initiative housed within APARC addressing pressing social, cultural, economic, and political challenges in Asia through comparative, policy-relevant studies. The lab cultivates the next generation of researchers and policy leaders by offering mentorships and fellowship opportunities for students and emerging scholars. These include two-year postdoctoral fellowships and one-year visiting fellowships, including for scholars from the Asia-Pacific region. Fellows collaborate with Stanford faculty, students, and other researchers to produce interdisciplinary, problem-oriented, and policy-relevant publications. The lab also offers research assistantships and a research workshop to foster academic exchange and mentorship. 

Yoder has been pleasantly surprised by the vibrancy of the intellectual community at APARC and FSI. “There are so many fantastic talks and events, it’s legitimately difficult to go to everything I want to,” he notes. The intersection of APARC, the Political Science Department, and the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) has created what he describes as a deeply interdisciplinary space, one that encourages both breadth and depth in academic inquiry and policy-relevant discussion.

Reflecting on academia, Yoder offers unflinching but thoughtful advice to early-career scholars. “It’s gonna get rough out there; hedge your bets,” he says. Success, in his view, depends on three things: genuine passion, persistence, and luck. “Plenty of talented, hard-working people don't get the breaks they need and their careers flounder,” he explains. For this reason, he encourages young scholars to pursue work they truly enjoy rather than trying to reverse-engineer success. “The process is the payoff, or it’s not worth doing. But be ready to shift to a different career path if it doesn’t work out.”

As he prepares to return to his position at the Australian National University in July, Yoder is eager to continue his work on signaling, great power politics, and Chinese foreign relations. A book project is a possibility, but not a priority — at least not yet. “I keep thinking of too many new articles I want to write,” he says, “so I’d rather do new stuff than expand my old stuff into a book.”

Through rigorous modeling, empirical grounding, and a deep engagement with contemporary strategic challenges, Brandon Yoder’s work offers essential insights into how states interpret signals, manage risks, and shape the evolving landscape of global power.