Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism

Briefing Pope Leo XIV on the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad to Respect and Protect Christians

Last week, I was in Rome for a brief audience with Pope Leo XIV on Wednesday morning and a meeting the next day with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state.

The audience with the Pope was to brief him on the covenants of the Prophet Muhammad, given more than 1,300 years ago to respect and protect Christians and Jews.

Informed by the astute guidance of Cardinal Silvano Tomasi, the Caux Round Table has provided good offices for six years now to an interreligious study of those covenants and to consideration of how they now provide our global community with a precedent for respectful and peaceful relations among the Abrahamic faiths in the Middle East and across the world. Our study has led to the publication of four books and two most important academic articles by our Muslim colleagues.

We had met with the late Pope Francis, who had strongly endorsed our study, to inform him of our findings and conclusions and we had kept him closely informed of what we were learning from the study of ancient texts and histories. Last week’s meeting with the Pope was our first opportunity to tell the new Pontiff about the Prophet’s covenants and their implications for our time.

Pope Leo was surprised to learn of the covenants. I was quite impressed at how so very quickly he took into account 1) the implications of the fact that the Prophet Muhammad had given such favorable consideration to Christians and Jews and 2) the relevance of that precedent for interreligious relations – and the end of violent conflict – in our world today.

I closed our brief exchange by informing the Pope of the plans of our colleagues in Lebanon to work with leaders of the different religious communities to revive the practice of the Prophet Muhammad to give covenants, one faith to another, of respect and protection of the other in order to firmly establish peaceful and fruitful cross-community relationships for the years to come. He smiled at me and nodded his head a bit as he thought about that prospect.

Here are a few photos of our meeting with Pope Leo from the Vatican Photo Service:

The next day, Cardinal Tomasi and I met with Cardinal Parolin to report on our exchange with the Pope and brief him on the proposed revival of covenanting in Lebanon:

The Cardinal was most pleased at the prospect and said that a ceremony at the Vatican to celebrate such covenant agreement would be most appropriate.

So, now our focus on the covenants of the Prophet Muhammad turns from study to action, action informed by study and piety and most necessarily, motivated by the most noble sentiments privileging peace on earth and reflecting good will to all humanity.

February 2026 Pegasus Now Available!

Here is February Pegasus.

This issue addresses some of the major events that have taken place in Minnesota over the past few months and years.

It also discusses how a renewed focus on higher education is vital to the future of our republic.

I would be interested in your thoughts and feedback.

I Ching Hexagram “Lake over Thunder – Following” (隨): What to do When Domestic and Foreign Policies Are Two Sides of the Same Coin?

[This essay is sponsored by the Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism (CRT) as a contribution to public policy discussions in Vietnam and the United States on Vietnam’s opportunities for growth and development, in the context of the CRT’s global ethical principles for capitalism and government]

I Ching Hexagram “Lake over Thunder – Following” (隨): What to do When Domestic and Foreign Policies Are Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Following external pressures while ignoring the will of one’s own people… Internal changes such as bureaucratic reshuffling, administrative downsizing, or inspections of major projects already underway may satisfy certain factions, but they have not yet liberated the vast social energies that have long been constrained.

Stephen B. Young & Nguyễn Thế Hùng

Introduction: The Political Wisdom of the “I Ching”

In the “I Ching” (Book of Changes), the hexagram “Lake over Thunder – Following” (隨) conveys a profound political principle: when historical circumstances undergo powerful transformation, leaders cannot simply resist the currents of change. Instead, they must align themselves with the evolving patterns of the time and guide their nation through the turbulence.

The symbolic structure of this hexagram is revealing. The upper trigram is “Lake” (Dui), associated with joy, openness, and social harmony. The lower trigram is “Thunder” (Zhen), representing sudden movement, awakening, and dramatic change. The imagery suggests a society experiencing powerful forces of transformation beneath the surface, while the leadership above must maintain balance, responsiveness, and harmony.

The classical judgment for this hexagram reads: “Following. Supreme success. Perseverance brings benefit. No blame.”

In other words, when a society responds to change according to fundamental principles, it can achieve prosperity, benefit the many, and maintain long-term stability.

However, “following” in the I Ching does not mean blind compliance. The text consistently emphasizes that true success arises only when strength and flexibility are balanced, and when internal legitimacy aligns with external adaptation.

Viewed through this lens, a major tension becomes visible in contemporary Vietnam: foreign policy seeks flexibility and integration with the world, while domestic political structures remain constrained by outdated institutional patterns.

When the two sides of the same system operate according to contradictory logics, the balance described in the hexagram can begin to break down.

1. Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba: Global Thunder Before the Storm

The inner trigram of this hexagram is Thunder (Zhen). In nature, thunder never erupts without warning. It is always preceded by the accumulation of dark clouds, pressure, and storm.

Recent developments in several countries illustrate this dynamic clearly.

In Venezuela, years of economic collapse, corruption, and authoritarian governance have produced extreme levels of social frustration. The anger of the population accumulated over decades before erupting into political upheaval.

In Iran, economic crisis has intensified as currency depreciation and inflation erode living standards. Public dissatisfaction has triggered waves of protests and growing instability within the political system.

In Cuba, the situation may be even more stark. Poverty and stagnation are visible throughout cities and rural areas. The country has experienced widespread blackouts, shortages of fuel, and lack of food supplies—clear signs of a system exhausted after decades of isolation and inefficient governance.

These examples illustrate an important political law: A regime may survive for a long time through political control, but without institutional and economic reform it eventually faces systemic crisis.

In many cases, the trigger for change is not purely domestic. External pressures often accelerate the moment of transformation.

The assertive foreign policy of Donald Trump toward countries such as Venezuela, Iran, and potentially Cuba should not be interpreted solely as a geopolitical struggle for resources like oil. Rather, it may function as a trigger mechanism within a larger historical process.

From the perspective of the I Ching, such actions correspond to the word “Yuan” (Origin or Foundational Principle) in the hexagram’s judgment. They attempt to reshape the underlying principles governing international order.

The key question, therefore, is not whether change is coming. The key question is which national leaders will recognize the emerging principles of the new era and adapt accordingly.

2. Should Vietnam “Follow the Times” in This Global Storm?

Navigating between competing great powers is not automatically equivalent to practicing the wisdom of the Hexagram “Following”.

Vietnam currently faces intense geopolitical pressures. It must maintain relations with China, while simultaneously deepening economic and strategic cooperation with the United States, Europe, and other major powers.

In this context, the upcoming visit of Vietnamese Communist Party General Secretary Tô Lâm to Beijing fits the logic of pragmatic adjustment: one cannot ignore geopolitical realities and must adapt to protect national interests.

Yet the I Ching warns that genuine “following” only produces positive results when it rests upon moral legitimacy and a stable ethical center.

Without such a center, flexibility risks degenerating into dependence.

True strategic autonomy requires something deeper than diplomatic maneuvering. It requires internal legitimacy rooted in the trust and participation of the people.

3. Vietnam’s Greatest Paradox

This brings us to Vietnam’s most fundamental contradiction today.

Vietnam is seeking deep integration into the global system—economically, technologically, and strategically. It has signed numerous trade agreements, expanded foreign investment, and established comprehensive strategic partnerships with many countries.

Yet domestically, the political system continues to severely limit fundamental civil liberties, including freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and broader civic participation.

This creates the central paradox: Following external change while not following the will of the people at home.

Internal reforms—such as administrative restructuring, anti-corruption campaigns, or oversight of large state projects—may resolve conflicts among political factions. But these actions have not yet unleashed the enormous social and creative potential of Vietnam’s nearly 100 million citizens.

If Vietnam truly wishes to “follow the time,” it must liberate the productive energies of its society.

A country cannot realistically aspire to become a Comprehensive Strategic Partner (CSP) with democratic nations while simultaneously maintaining a political system that restricts core civil liberties.

In the long run, foreign policy and domestic governance cannot travel on separate paths.

The I Ching teaches that yin and yang must remain balanced. If one side develops while the other is suppressed, the entire system becomes unstable.

4. The “Illusion of Stability” in Closed Systems

One of the greatest dangers faced by closed political systems is self-deception produced by their own propaganda structures.

When information flows are tightly controlled, ruling elites may come to believe that society remains stable—even when deep transformations are occurring beneath the surface.

This produces what might be called an illusion of stability.

Propaganda does not only reassure the population; it can also prevent those in power from accurately perceiving the real condition of the country they govern.

In the digital age, however, this situation is becoming increasingly unsustainable.

As Vietnam integrates more deeply into the global economy and as internet connectivity expands, citizens inevitably compare their own political and economic realities with those of other societies.

Information, knowledge, and global benchmarks are steadily reshaping how people understand:

• their rights
• their opportunities
• and the legitimacy of political institutions.

5. Following the Time — But Ultimately Following the People

The deeper message of Hexagram Following is not that societies should simply align with the strongest power.

Rather, it teaches that the ultimate force in history is the collective will of the people.

Wise diplomacy is necessary. But diplomacy cannot substitute for internal reform.

If a country truly seeks to integrate into the modern world—economically, technologically, and politically—it must build institutions based on:

• rule of law
• transparency
• and respect for human rights.

These principles are not merely moral ideals. In today’s global system, they function increasingly as structural requirements for sustainable development and international credibility.

Without such foundations, foreign policy strategies become temporary patchwork solutions.

Democratic societies cannot be indefinitely misled or manipulated. Their governments operate under real constitutions, competitive elections, and the constant scrutiny of voters.

Even when policymakers act from pragmatic interests rather than moral conviction, they must still respond to ethical expectations embedded within democratic institutions.

The earlier intellectual work on Moral Capitalism, as well as the continuing discussions within the CRT (Caux Round Table) community, reflect precisely this fundamental principle: societies endure when economic power is aligned with moral legitimacy.

Conclusion:

The hexagram “Lake over Thunder – Following” teaches that political wisdom lies in recognizing when the fundamental principles of an era are changing. To recognize that shift is to understand how to move with the current of history rather than against it. But the defining currents of the 21st century are not limited to geopolitical competition among great powers. They also include:

• the rise of civil society
• the global diffusion of rule-of-law principles
• and the growing human demand for dignity, freedom, and civic participation.

If domestic and foreign policy are understood as two sides of the same coin, the strategic choice facing any nation becomes clearer. A country can adapt to the direction of history, reform its institutions, and integrate authentically into the international community. Or it can continue along an older trajectory—one that many nations have already followed, only to discover too late that delaying reform merely magnifies the crises that eventually arrive.

Stephen B. Young, JD, is a retired Dean and Professor of Law at Hamline Law School. His book Moral Capitalism is being published in Vietnamese. His scholarly works on Vietnam include The Tradition of Human Rights in China and Vietnam, a study of classical jurisprudence in China and Vietnam. When serving in the United States Agency for International Development in Saigon (1968-1971) he studied the I Ching (Kinh Dich) with Mr. Duong Thai Ban, a noted master of the art of consulting the ancient hexagrams. He has been interviewed by the BBC in Vietnamese on his book Kissinger’s Betrayal: How American Lost the Vietnam War and has been published on the Tieng Dan website.

Dr. Nguyễn Thế Hùng, a Vietnamese physicist holding a Ph.D. in Physics, is a scholar known for his strong scientific foundation and analytical approach to philosophical and cultural studies. With a deep interest in exploring ancient principles, he brings a modern scientific perspective to traditional Eastern thought. His latest publication on I Ching (Kinh Dịch), one of the oldest philosophical classics of East Asia, reflects this interdisciplinary vision.

In the book, Dr. Nguyễn seeks to interpret the I Ching—a system centered on the concepts of yin and yang, transformation, and the dynamic nature of the universe—through the lens of contemporary scientific reasoning. Rather than treating it solely as a mystical or divinatory text, he approaches it as a symbolic framework that embodies profound insights into change, order, and human experience.

A Most Significant Anniversary

Two hundred and fifty years ago today, March 9, 1776, Adam Smith’s most influential book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (more commonly known as The Wealth of Nations), was published.

To mark the anniversary and to honor the almost miraculous intellectual and so indirectly, the policy contributions of a great mind, the Caux Round Table has published, with De Gruyter Brill, a book of essays on the book:

To learn more and/or purchase a copy, please click here.

Last Year’s Yijing Predictions Largely Came to Be

The last few years, I have sought to globalize cultural analysis of the forces which move events – are they moral in any sense? To do this, I have consulted the ancient Chinese Yijing – 64 hexagrams each of which has six lines, each representing a yin force or a yang force. The arrangements of the lines offer a prediction as to the direction of events. So, the hexagram associated with a particular year gives us a coherent sense of what will have effect during the year and what will be of little effect or even suffer reverse or failure during those 12 lunar months.

As midnight Monday was the end of lunar year 2025, this notice is a report on the accuracy of my predictions for that year. I will shortly consult the Yijing again for its wisdom on what is to come during the current lunar year of 2026.

Last January, I made the following observations as to what would likely happen during 2025. The relevant hexagram was #44. It called things pretty much as they would happen over the year.

Here is some of what I concluded:

The fissiparous nature of the world order will frustrate the emergence of leaders with the necessary yang energies to respond to the times with alliances and collaborations. We can expect petty squabbles, petulance, disobliging, stubborn, recalcitrant, beggar-thy-neighbor policies and decision from all quarters. This will hinder ending the wars in Ukraine and between the Palestinians and the Jews of Israel.

In the U.S., President Trump, personally in line with yang energies, will find himself checked internationally by an unwillingness to see things his way or meet his demands. He would be better served if he backed away from threats and punitive responses which use yin and spread his concern and compassion for others far and wide, being a partner, not a boss. He should think of himself as a kind and gentle wind blowing freely everywhere to bring hope of change through team spirit to everyone. He should think big and wholesomely about moving Heaven and Earth for the good of all.

In a very consequential mistake, going against this lunar year’s auspicious energy flows, was Trump’s decision in early February 2025 to impose tariffs on American imports from Canada and Mexico. The Canadians and Mexicans immediately retaliated, setting off a trade war that will raise hard feelings, provoke anger and resentment and prevent collaboration. Going against the yin/yang balance of this Year of the Snake will make it harder for Trump to get his way and so confront him with a loss of power and influence.

Domestically, Trump will achieve more, as he has a team in place and he engages with them, allocating responsibilities for results to others. He is taking advantage of their willingness to work together on an agenda. His opponents – symbolized by the first line denoting yin energy – will be unable to obstruct him. The more he reaches out and engages (“couples,” as the hexagram says) with others, the more he will be successful. The more he tries to impose his will on others, the less he will accomplish. It is a year set to reward coalition building and finding the middle ground, giving advantages to all parties.

The Democratic Party, resting in the first line of the hexagram, will not get its act together. They are out of sync with the times. They have lost sight of Heaven and Earth and are so prevented from using the great powers of those realms to further their aspirations and their efficacy. As Proverbs 28:19 tells us, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

The advantage will be to the small, the innovative, the trusting and the trustworthy, in the economy – not the behemoths of the great corporations. Artificial intelligence will assist collaborations, as it makes useful for small businesses and entrepreneurs data multiplied by data. Those who stand aside or refuse to align their efforts will stagnate or fail. The flow of forces should moderate inflation and keep equity markets optimistic. However, there will be no success in reducing debt levels.

I do not see reforms in American education, reversing recent trends of declining competence in reading, writing, mathematics and the ability to think rationally and effectively. Fixations on “my truths” and lack of respect for merit will prevent schools, colleges and universities from engaging with and inspiring their students to benefit from primal energies and soar in their ability and their aspirations. Those institutions, too, are stuck in the first line of the hexagram – a yin-bounded view towards life, cut off from greater yang possibilities.

Please Join Us to Celebrate Adam Smith’s Contribution to Modernity and Human Prosperity on March 9 on Zoom

Please join us at 9:00 am (CDT) on Monday, March 9 on Zoom to celebrate the release of our new book, Adam Smith and Modern Economics: Reclaiming the Moral High Ground!

The book was planned to commemorate one of the most significant steps forward in Western intellectual history and in its political and economic production of modern civilization – the publication of Adam Smith’s book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (more commonly known as The Wealth of Nations) 250 years ago this March 9, 2026.

To register, please email jed@cauxroundtable.net.

Event will last about an hour.

Caux Round Table Principles for Moral Government Vindicated

Not often do notable events impacting the royal family of the United Kingdom and the president of the United States happen nearly simultaneously. But both the police questioning of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and the U.S. Supreme Court’s invalidating national and international policies of President Trump vindicate the moral integrity of the Caux Round Table’s Principles for Moral Government.

My reassurance on this validation of our principles is as follows:

First, the Caux Round Table ethical principle that public office is a public trust was just vindicated in the United Kingdom, when the police took in for questioning Andrew Windsor-Mountbatten, former Prince of the Realm. He was questioned on his conduct as a government official for possible misconduct in public office.

Photographer Behind Viral Ex-Prince Andrew Arrest Photo Reveals How He Got the Historic Shot

The Caux Round Table Principles for Moral Government demand that a public office is a public trust. Therefore, every public official is a trustee held to fiduciary duties of service and selflessness:

Fundamental Principle: Public power is held in trust for the community

Power brings responsibility. Power is a necessary moral circumstance in that it binds the actions of one to the welfare of others.

Therefore, the power given by public office is held in trust for the benefit of the community and its citizens. Officials are custodians only of the powers they hold. They have no personal entitlement to office or the prerogatives thereof.

Holders of public office are accountable for their conduct while in office. They are subject to removal for malfeasance, misfeasance or abuse of office. The burden of proof that no malfeasance, misfeasance or abuse of office has occurred lies with the officeholder.

The state is the servant and agent of higher ends. It is subordinate to society. Public power is to be exercised within a framework of moral responsibility for the welfare of others. Governments that abuse their trust shall lose their authority and may be removed from office.

And:

Public servants shall refrain from abuse of office, corruption and shall demonstrate high levels of personal integrity.

Public office is not to be used for personal advantage, financial gain or as a prerogative manipulated by arbitrary personal desire. Corruption – financial, political and moral – is inconsistent with stewardship of public interests. Only the rule of law is consistent with a principled approach to use of public power.

This standard of conduct for public officials we get from Cicero in his De Officiis (On Duties). He wrote:

For the administration of the government, like the office of a trustee, must be conducted for the benefit of those entrusted to one’s care, not of those to whom it is entrusted. Now, those who care for the interests of a part of the citizens and neglect another part, introduce into the civil service a dangerous element – dissension and party strife. (Book I, XXV, 85)

Secondly, last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rule of law governing the Presidency, not the arbitrary and capricious whim of a president.

According to the Caux Round Table Principles of Moral Government:

Only the rule of law is consistent with a principled approach to use of public power.

Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court wrote that President was not authorized by the Congress to declare national emergencies and pursuant to such declarations impose and then willfully modify tariffs on goods purchased by Americans. The court declared the law to be that the Constitution gave the power to impose taxes only to the Congress and that tariffs were taxation of the American people.

Robert’s opinion said:

“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA – “regulate” and “importation” – the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Thus, the Court’s opinion for a majority of justices turned on “wording,” on the rightful understanding of “words,” not just any “my truth” interpretation of words to suit an official’s pleasure, ambition, corrupt purpose or stupidity.

Roberts, thereby, refuted the Nietzschean arrogance of Humpty Dumpty when instructing Alice on the meaning of words:

“And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!”

“I don’t know what you mean by “glory,” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”

“But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

To use Humpty Dumpty’s logic, we can reframe what the Supreme Court did, using its authority given by Article III of the Constitution, when it decided what was to be the meaning of certain words in a statute passed by Congress, was to assume the right to be “master.”

As far as his tariffs were concerned, President Trump was not “master” of defining legislative language.

The Supreme Court held that, in a case about taxation of the people, President Trump was ruled by law, not his individual arbitrary and capricious will. He has no authority to impose taxes:

“,,, the Framers gave Congress “alone . . . access to the pockets of the people.” The Federalist No. 48, at 310 (J. Madison); see also Declaration of Independence ¶19. They required “All Bills for raising Revenue [to] originate in the House of Representatives.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §7, cl. 1. And in doing so, they ensured that only the House could “propose the supplies requisite for the support of government,” thereby reducing “all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches.” The Federalist No. 58, at 359 (J. Madison). They did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch. See Nicol, 173 U. S., at 515 (“[T]he whole power of taxation rests with Congress”).

No quibbling possible here; no lawyering that black can mean white or that white can mean black.

The Court ruled that the President’s authority under Article II of the Constitution to manage the nation’s foreign affairs did not include any authority at all to override a separate constitutional provision on taxation.

Placing executive officials under the rule of law has long been the rule of governance in England. Writing of English constitutional law around 1250, Henry De Bracton stated that, “The king must not be under man, but under God and under the law because law makes the king. … for there is no king where will rules rather than law.” … The king has a superior, namely God. Also, the law by which he is made king. Also, his council, namely the earls and barons because if he is without bridle, that is without law, they ought to put a bridle on him.”

In 1399, Richard II, King of England, was deposed as king. Article 33 of the articles presented to justify his being deposed said this about his not following the rule of law, of not having the law as a bridle:

The king did not wish to preserve or protect the just laws and customs of this kingdom, but to do what struck his fancy according to his arbitrary will. When frequently the justices and others of the council explained and declared the laws of the realm to him and when according to those laws he was to grant justice to those seeking it, he said expressly with a hard and a bold countenance that the laws were in his mouth and sometimes he said that they were in his heart and that he alone could change and establish the laws of the realm. Following that opinion, he did not grant justice to many of his liegemen, but through threats and terrors he compelled many to cease asking for common justice.

In an interview with the New York Times last month, President Trump said that the only constraint to his power as president is “my own morality, my own mind.”

“It’s the only thing that can stop me,” Trump said, adding: “I’m not looking to hurt people.” He went on to concede “I do” in regards to whether his administration needed to adhere to international law, but said: “It depends on what your definition of international law is.”

Trump, who spoke to the newspaper as his administration looks into “a range of options” in attempts to gain control of Greenland, also emphasized the importance of ownership.

“Ownership is very important,” Trump said, adding: “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with, you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”

Note that to be an owner makes you a “master.”

Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy of the will to power, which legitimated ungoverned mastery dripping with arrogance and intolerance, would not tolerate any subordination of the individual to the rule of law.

Trump’s response to the Supreme Court’s decision to deny him the power to impose taxes on the American people was Humpty Dumpty-ish, putting labels on the justices who refused to accept his way of thinking:

“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.” The justices in the majority are a “disgrace to our nation” and “very unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution.” “They’re just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats.” “It’s an embarrassment to their families, to one another.”

January 2026 Pegasus Now Available!

A little belatedly, here is January Pegasus.

Two hundred and fifty years ago this coming March 9, Adam Smith’s most influential book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (more commonly known as The Wealth of Nations), was published. To mark that anniversary and to honor the almost miraculous intellectual and so indirectly, the policy contributions of a great mind, the Caux Round Table is publishing, with De Gruyter Brill, a book of essays on the book. As the editor, I wrote the introduction, part of which we include in this month’s issue.

Secondly, Michael Hartoonian writes about another monumental event which will be commemorated later this year – the 250^th anniversary of the U.S. Declaration of Independence – and how it relates to Smith’s work.

Lastly, we include our 2025 year in review (annual report).

As always, I would be most interested in your thoughts and feedback.

To Lam meets Donald Trump: a Good Step forward but no Breakthrough – Yet

Vietnam and the United States Confront Multidimensional Strategic Variables: some are only optics but others have resilient substance

Introduction by Professor Stephen Young

Unlike September 2024—when mixed signals and discordant domestic voices accompanied Vietnam’s high-level engagement with Washington—General Secretary To Lam’s visit to Washington on February 18 – 20) unfolded with more controlled message discipline and more obvious choreography. Over two days, the Vietnamese leader not only attended the inaugural session of President Donald Trump’s Gaza Peace Board but also secured something more politically consequential: a formal meeting with the American President at the White House.

After three previously unsuccessful attempts to arrange direct talks, the doors of the White House finally opened. The handshake, the carefully worded public praise, and the optics of mutual respect were unmistakable.

HOÀNG TRƯỜNG (PhD)

And yet: beneath the hopeful symbolism lies a more complex strategic landscape. Vietnam–U.S. relations are not stalled—but neither have they achieved a lasting structural break with the past. Instead, they remain in a transitional phase shaped by multidimensional uncertainties: institutional tensions within the United States, geoeconomic rivalry centered on China, and internal political calibrations in Vietnam.

This review examines the strategic consequences of the meeting—not merely as a diplomatic event, but as a node within a broader matrix of power, legitimacy, trade negotiation, and geopolitical balancing.

1. The Meaning of Access: Washington’s Recognition of Party Leadership in Vietnam

One of the most consequential dimensions of the visit lies not in what was signed, but in who was received—and how.

To Lam arrived in Washington not as head of state, nor as prime minister, but as General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. He does not hold a state office. Yet in Vietnam’s political system, the General Secretary of the Party is the supreme decision-maker, positioned over the Constitution and the laws

This distinction once posed a diplomatic complication for Washington. When General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong was invited to the Oval Office in 2015 by President Barack Obama, the meeting triggered a deliberate institutional adjustment in American protocol. Former U.S. Ambassador to Hanoi, Ted Osius, later described the extensive effort required to persuade Washington bureaucrats that the Party leader—not just the state president—was Vietnam’s highest authority in fact.

That meeting marked a turning point. It established a presidential–general secretary axis in bilateral engagement.

By contrast, President Trump appeared entirely comfortable hosting To Lam. Public remarks highlighted Vietnam’s importance and conveyed personal warmth. The ease of the interaction reflects how normalized the recognition of Vietnam’s Party leadership has become in U.S. diplomacy.

Strategically, this matters in two ways:

External legitimacy: It reinforces To Lam’s status as Vietnam’s principal interlocutor with the West.

Internal authority: It allows him to demonstrate to domestic audiences that he commands direct access to the world’s leading power. For a leader consolidating his position after the 14th Party Congress—and no longer holding the presidency—such symbolism carries weight.

2. Multilateral Cover, Bilateral Priority

Officially, To Lam’s presence in Washington centered on his participation in the inaugural session of President Trump’s Board of Peace.

Vietnam positioned itself as an early supporter of the effort. While President Trump announced that participating countries in the new international entity had pledged over $7 billion for Gaza reconstruction, Vietnam was not publicly listed among major financial contributors. Instead, Vietnamese officials later indicated future possible contributions in peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, and post-conflict reconstruction support.

Yet the full bilateral schedule revealed the real priority for the two leaders: trade and technology.

Meetings included discussions with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and other economic officials. The Board of Peace discussion of Gaza provided diplomatic cover for what was, for Vietnam and the United States, fundamentally a commercial and strategic negotiation.

This dual-layer approach reflected Vietnam’s general foreign policy approach: using multilateral engagement as a platform to open up opportunities bilateral negotiations.

3. Trade Tensions: Surplus, Tariffs, and Structural Friction

The economic relationship between Vietnam and the United States is both extensive and contentious.

Vietnam’s trade surplus with the U.S. remains substantial. Washington has imposed a 20% tariff on Vietnamese imports and up to 40% on goods deemed to be Chinese products transshipped from Vietnam. Six negotiation rounds have yet to produce a comprehensive agreement resolving American concerns

Two structural concerns dominate U.S. calculations:

Persistent trade imbalance.
Allegations that Vietnam serves as a conduit for Chinese goods circumventing American tariffs.

Vietnam’s response to these concerns during To Lam’s visit was clear: visible rebalancing.

Agreements reportedly totaling more than $30 billion were showcased, prominently including aircraft purchases involving Boeing:

Sun PhuQuoc Airways agreed to buy 40 Boeing 787-9 aircraft.
Vietnam Airlines confirmed purchases of 50 Boeing 737-8 aircraft.
Vietjet announced financing arrangements tied to additional Boeing aircraft acquisitions.

These transactions serve a dual purpose: commercial modernization of Vietnam and political signaling.

However, industry observers note that Vietnamese carriers—particularly Vietjet—have repeatedly signed memoranda of understanding (MOUs), restructuring agreements, and phased contracts over the past decade. Public announcements often do not clarify whether such deals represent new commitments or restructured previous orders.

In political terms, however, precision may matter less than perception. Large procurement announcements reinforce the narrative that Vietnam is actively narrowing its trade gap with the United States. And President Trump loves to announce that foreign cash is flowing into America.

Thus, President Trump publicly acknowledged Vietnam’s efforts to rebalance – who buys from whom? —a domestic political win for him, even absent a signed trade agreement with Vietnam.

4. Export Controls and Technology Access: A Conditional Opening

The most concrete outcome of the White House meeting was President Trump’s pledge to direct agencies to remove Vietnam from strategic export control categories D1–D3.

If implemented, this could expand Vietnam’s access to:

American advanced semiconductors.
American Artificial Intelligence technologies.
American dual-use systems critical to industrial upgrading.

For Vietnam, this aligns with its ambition to move its economy up the global value chain and integrate Vietnamese companies into next-generation supply chains.

Yet President Trump’s pledge sits awkwardly within a volatile institutional environment.

On the same day as Trump met with his Vietnamese counterpart, the U.S. Supreme Court revoked Trump’s executive authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump then immediately signaled his intention to pursue alternative legal routes under the Trade Act of 1974.

This episode illustrates a broader point: U.S. trade policy is currently shaped by friction among executive ambition, judicial oversight, and congressional scrutiny.

For Vietnam, this means that any prospective commitment from the White House must pass through domestic institutional filters. Policy durability cannot be assumed.

5. The China Variable: Transshipment and Strategic Suspicion

Vietnam’s position within the serious U.S.–China rivalry is a central strategic variable.

Washington has grown increasingly attentive to transshipment practices—where Chinese goods are routed through third countries to evade tariffs. Congressional testimony has emphasized preventing such “leakage.”

Vietnam’s geographic proximity to China and deep integration into regional supply chains make it particularly scrutinized for assisting its neighbor gain access to US customers

If Vietnam is perceived as a backdoor channel for Chinese exports, punitive tariffs could be imposed by the United States. Conversely, overly restrictive Vietnamese measures against Chinese-linked investment could strain Hanoi–Beijing ties.

Thus, a balancing act defines Vietnam’s contemporary strategic posture:

Maintain economic interdependence with China.
Expand strategic partnership with the United States.
Avoid formal alignment with either.

To Lam’s White House meeting may have strengthened reciprocal trust—but such trust remains conditioned on verifiable trade compliance.

6. Media Strategy and Narrative Construction

An underexamined but strategically important dimension of the visit was narrative management.

Vietnamese media prominently highlighted digital displays in Times Square and a Washington Times article praising Vietnam’s proactive diplomacy. The latter appeared under an “advertisement” label, reflecting a sponsored placement.

Such media practices are not unprecedented; Vietnam has used similar strategies during previous high-level visits. Domestically, they serve to project international recognition and prestige.

For To Lam, narrative control was especially significant. Unlike September 2024—when online commentary and dissenting voices surfaced—this visit was subject to tighter domestic messaging discipline.

In political terms, such management of optics is a form of power consolidation on To Lam’s behalf.

7. Domestic Political Implications

The domestic implications of the visit may be as important for Vietnam as the foreign policy outcomes.

To Lam previously served briefly as Vietnam’s President before consolidating his role solely as General Secretary. His continuing to operate internationally as Vietnam’s de facto head of state reinforces a Party-centered structure of national authority for the Vietnamese.

For internal Party audiences, the White House reception strengthens To Lam’s standing. It signals that he can command Western respect without diluting Vietnam’s political model.

However, risks remain.

In Vietnam, segments of ideological conservatives and veterans—whose political identity remains shaped by the “anti-American resistance” narrative—may view deepening U.S. ties with caution. Visible warmth with Washington could prompt calls for renewed emphasis on ideological vigilance against “peaceful evolution” – the importation into Vietnam of decentralizing and democratizing reforms.

Thus, external diplomatic successes must be balanced against internal ideological counterforces.

8. From Symbolism to Structure: What Would a Breakthrough Look Like?

What would constitute a genuine strategic breakthrough?

Three developments would signal structural transformation:

A comprehensive bilateral trade agreement institutionalized over and above executive discretion.
Formal recognition under US trade law of Vietnam as a market economy.
Ending American export control restrictions backed by congressional authority.

None of these steps occurred during To Lam’s visit.

Instead, the Vietnam/US bilateral relationship remains one of incremental adjustments.

Conclusion: Transitional, Not Transformational

The February White House meeting between President Donald Trump and General Secretary To Lam was symbolically significant and politically useful for both sides.

For Washington, it reinforced influence in Southeast Asia without formal alliance commitments.

For Hanoi, it consolidated leadership legitimacy and advanced technology access negotiations.

Yet the relationship has not entered a new structural phase.

It remains in transition—shaped by:

Institutional tension within the U.S. political system among the Presidency, the Congress, and the courts.
Differing Strategic needs on the part of China and the United States.
Unresolved domestic political differences within Vietnam.

The handshake mattered. The optics mattered. The promise on export controls mattered.

But transformation requires institutionalization of mutual collaboration and respect.

Until only political commitments harden into legally resilient frameworks, Vietnam–U.S. relations will continue advancing—carefully, conditionally, and in response to the differing influences of multidimensional strategic variables.