Donald Trump
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT. With the news that Donald J. Trump will be the forty-seventh president of the United States, there has been a flurry of analyses and prognostications on what that means for U.S. foreign policy and the international system writ large. While a victory for current Vice President Kamala Harris was viewed as a nod for continuity in U.S. foreign policy, a second Trump presidency could usher in a significant change in how Washington interacts with allies and adversaries from the Middle East to Asia. Trump is largely unmoored from any true organizing principles or ideological worldview other than the loosely defined approach of “America First,” which during his first term translated to protectionist trade policies, neo-isolationist tendencies, and the near-constant haranguing of NATO allies for their military spending to meet or exceed 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP).
For clues to how Trump might approach foreign policy in a second term, it makes sense to revisit the strengths and weaknesses of his first term. His administration maintained a chaotic relationship with European allies, tried and failed to negotiate with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords, and withdrew troops from Syria in 2019 at the behest of Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, effectively abandoning America’s Kurdish allies and prompting the resignation of then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis.
On the positive side, Trump received high marks during his presidential term for taking a hard line with China, a course correction for U.S. foreign policy that was long overdue. In the Middle East, under his administration, the United States made significant progress in dismantling the territorial caliphate of the so-called Islamic State, including killing its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in October 2019. He helped to facilitate the Abraham Accords, agreements between Israel and several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. And even with his brusque approach to NATO, the desire to get Europe to spend more on defense is not the wrong impulse, even as the way he goes about diplomacy is often counterproductive and cumbersome.
Trump’s hardened stance with China will likely continue into his new administration and if not appropriately managed, could cause serious friction with Beijing. His proposed economic policies largely attribute tariffs on China as a primary strategy, advocating for a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods. This is a much more severe continuation of his “American First” policy in his first term. This move would stress already tense relations and increase the risk of a trade war between the U.S. and China. According to a study by The Peterson Institute for International Economics, this policy, along with a 20 percent tariff on all other nations, would cost a typical middle-class household more than $2,600 a year, in other words, an after-tax income loss of about 4 percent. These policies will likely trigger retaliation by China and other countries, further damaging the U.S. economy while also “dampen[ing] the prospects for a big-tent coalition of major economies that could bring coordinated pressure on Beijing to curb its most egregious trade abuses,” according to Foreign Policy.
High tariffs on China, the world’s largest producer and processor of critical minerals – key elements in climate technology such as electric vehicles – will further limit the ability of these materials from entering the United States, helping to embolden Trump’s “drill baby drill” stance on increasing production of American oil and gas. This stance could also lead Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement for a second time, following Joe Biden re-joining under his administration. If Trump leaves the Paris Agreement again, it could provide much less pressure on other countries to commit to climate action especially as the 29th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is set to kick off next week in Baku, Azerbaijan.
Also, during his time as president, Trump repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, while frequently criticizing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, with whom he shares a complicated history. Trump’s attempt in 2019 to leverage U.S. military aid allegedly to pressure Zelensky into investigating his political rivals was a central issue in his first impeachment in 2019. Trump’s praise for Putin and their relationship continued into his 2024 campaign. He used this relationship to bolster the claim that if he had been president in 2022, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine.
Trump has since promised to bring a swift end to the Russo-Ukrainian war if elected and has stated that Ukraine should have “given up a little bit” to Moscow, weeks after refusing to announce that he was committed to a Ukrainian victory in his debate with presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Trump later told Zelensky that he would make a deal that would benefit “both sides.” These factors have only raised concerns that he would pressure Ukraine into an unfavorable truce by leveraging U.S. aid. This falls in line with Republican policy during the Biden administration, where Republican policymakers have been keen to cut or significantly reduce support for Ukraine’s defense. If this is true, it comes at an inopportune time for Ukraine. Russia continues to make gains in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, and its forces are now bolstered by the arrival of North Korean troops. Furthermore, if Russia succeeds in gaining substantial Ukrainian territory, there is a very real possibility that the Kremlin could shift its focus to gaining territory in other neighboring countries that have already been victim of Russian hybrid warfare.
The world has changed significantly since Trump was first in office, and the war between Ukraine and Russia is only one of several global conflicts he would face if re-elected. Following Israel’s recent campaign in Gaza, Trump has broadly called for an end to the conflict, though it remains unclear if he envisions a specific path toward a ceasefire. He has expressed unwavering support for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, reportedly telling Netanyahu in a recent call to “do what you have to do” — a sentiment experts interpret as encouraging escalation in Gaza and Lebanon, despite humanitarian concerns. For those who say Trump would give Netanyahu a “blank check” in Gaza, in reality, his policy might not be altogether too different than the Biden administration’s approach, which has failed to curb the worst of Netanyahu’s excesses. In 2018, Trump cut funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA); as the humanitarian toll rises, he may once again halt this funding, which President Joe Biden restored in 2021.
On the morning of Trump’s recent election, Netanyahu fired his political adversary Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, one of the few advocates in the Israeli government for a ceasefire, sparking widespread protests. As Netanyahu consolidates power and his administration grows more hawkish, a future Trump administration is unlikely to temper these right-wing voices. While the new head of Middle East policy is not yet confirmed, some have suggested that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner — who brokered the Abraham Accords — could be a possibility, although he has stated that he will eschew joining a second Trump administration. Still, Kushner has publicly praised the real-estate potential of “waterfront property” in Gaza and suggested that Israel should remove civilians while it “cleans up” the area. Kushner’s comments have led many to believe that Trump’s administration would embolden or turn a blind eye to the annexationist faction within Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition, which would extend to further actions in the West Bank.
The future of U.S. foreign policy will depend, in large part, on who Trump brings into key cabinet positions within his administration. While many were relieved during his first term when he tapped well-regarded individuals such as Mattis and H.R. McMaster, neither finished their term in the Trump White House. The best path to stability is to surround himself with experienced, mission-driven individuals who advocate country over party and are keen to avoid some of the most glaring missteps of Trump’s first term, including his penchant for alienating important allies and embracing adversaries and autocrats. America needs to remain credible and reliable, and an assertive, though not reckless, foreign policy is a stabilizing force in the world. Erratic decision-making and creeping isolationism could lead some fence-sitters to drift toward China, which would be detrimental to the post-World War II international system designed in Washington’s image and likeness and which underpins American strength and global prosperity.
