Some examples:
Are you responding to me? Cause these are not examples of what I asked for, instances of other countries putting US needs in a priority place in negotiations with us, as this seems to be what you think we should do in reverse.
In fact, I'll go out on a limb, and say I don't think even European countries, let alone any others, see our needs as at all relevant to their negotiating position. And that's literally the stance you are decrying when we take it.
Using US soft power to encourage countries like Saudi Arabia to increase the rights of women. While not always successful, there is literally nothing in it for us. It is still a good thing to do, and what it means to be a leader in the world.
There's all kinds in that for us. It makes our world safer, it liberalizes their country and their markets and it increases their needs for consumer goods.
Using US military power via NATO in Bosnia to prevent thousands if not millions of deaths. Nothing in it for us, still a good thing to do.
Well except stabilizing a country, which is good for business, and eliminating the risk that it would spill over into Europe generally, which is a major commercial and strategic benefit to us.
Giving US economic aid helps make people less desperate in other countries, and provides clean drinking water saving lots of lives.
And again is a humanitarian good, but not an event isolated from our self interest. Stability in every third world country is a net good for our industry and safety. In fact, the primary distinction in this area with Trump is that he wants this kind of aid more expressly tied to specific economic and policy goals. You don't think Obama did the same? Not aware of social causes he tied aid to? Different goals, same soft push.
It's really more of a question of short-term interest narrowly construed vs long-term interest widely construed.
It's more a "question" that you don't think Trump understands long term goals, when there's no evidence that he doesn't. In fact, if you take him at his face, nothing you listed above is at risk, as they are all things that have potential net benefit, what is at risk is when those "potentials" aren't being realized.
A food program that brings stability - net good, one that supports a fascist dictator - not so much.
Stopping a war where an oppressive regime is slaughtering innocents - net good, stopping a war when an oppressed people are trying to overthrow a dictator - not so good.
Giving aid to a country like Saudi Arabia that results in real improvements for women - net good, giving them aid that lets them make superficial changes while diverting resources to hardliners that oppress women in other areas - not so good.
This critique of Trump's position is based on the simplistic view that all of X is good, therefore Trump is bad for stopping X. All Trump has said is that providing X should be tied to seeing good Y, and if X is less than Y its time to rethink X.
Other countries do, from time to time, take a stand for the American people that don't benefit them directly. One example would be refusing to extradite American citizens that would face the death penalty. Most foreign aid to the US comes in times of disaster, because when you are the richest country in the world there's not much Nigeria can do to improve American lives.
Wow, they don't extradite Americans to third world murder capitals. They also don't extradite them to America (hello Roman Polanski).
Now, since we were talking about this in context of trade, show me something relevant. Is Europe acting in our interests when they impose massive fines disproportionately on US companies and create artificial barriers to US companies that they want their local companies to compete against? What about their very recent efforts to impose new taxes on US IP companies, or the French case against Google and apple for "unfairness" to French App developers. The net effect of these is to transfer 10's of billions of dollars from US companies to EU countries. Would you support parallel US provisions?
Heck, one idea Trump announced he is thinking about with respect to China is to simply make their anti-competition laws reciprocal. You know mandatory requirements of US partner majority control on all business ventures, tech transfers and other strict limits on how they can enter and interact in the US. If we are the "aggressor" as you seem to think, this would be a toothless threat, yet its an existential threat to China's commerce.
That's part of the responsibility of being a leading power. But even if the policy isn't right, the tone is important. A diplomatic tone rather than a belligerent one.
Why? The diplomatic tone has been walked all over. Is it your view that Putin is better controlled with a diplomatic tone? Then why have we been so aggressive against Russia?
China is far more abusive, why so passive and "diplomatic"?
I'll flat out say it, Europeans are better diplomats and bureacrats, playing "diplomatic" is never going to be to our net advantage. They constantly spin abusive trade practices into ways that people refuse to see.
