By Heraldviews
The early months of President Donald Trump’s return to office have marked a decisive shift in the United States’ foreign policy, one increasingly driven by economic self-interest, bilateral relationships, and a retreat from global commitments, analysts say, departing sharply from the internationalist approach that defined the country’s role in the decades following World War II.
Geopolitical
experts and foreign policy scholars suggest that Trump’s strategy reflects a
broader recalibration of U.S. priorities, with far-reaching implications for
global stability, alliances, and the future of multilateral cooperation.
“It
essentially means, in a lot of cases, the U.S., and the rest of the world, will
be on its own in a way that it hasn't been since before World War II,” said
Ryan Bohl, a geopolitical analyst. “Under Trump, the U.S. is less engaged, less
focused, and less willing to flex its muscles to resolve issues that are not
core U.S. interests.”
Rewiring
the World Order
For
many foreign policy observers, Trump’s renewed focus on national sovereignty
and economic advantage represents not only a tactical shift but a structural
one.
“Trump
is trying to fundamentally change the world order,” said M. Steven Fish, a
political science professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Fish and
others argue that the resulting vacuum in global leadership is providing new
opportunities for rival powers, particularly China, to expand their influence.
“What
we're seeing is probably a world order that will be led by China,” Fish said.
“A world order in which China perhaps even will become the most trustworthy
guardian of the financial system.”
Frayed
Alliances, New Alignments
The
administration’s pivot away from traditional alliances has already begun to
reshape U.S. global engagement. Relations with Europe, long anchored in NATO
and transatlantic cooperation, have cooled considerably. The administration has
signaled that it no longer sees itself as the default guarantor of European
security.
“The
time has come for Europe to stand on its own feet,” Vice President J.D. Vance
wrote in an opinion article published in the Financial Times,
referencing what he described as “deep and lasting cuts” to European defense
budgets that Washington has had to counterbalance.
Bohl
said Trump’s aim appears tactical, pressuring allies to strengthen their own
defenses against adversaries like Russia and China so the U.S. can reduce its
own burden. “It’s a significant push to get the Europeans to rearm,” he said.
Others
see a less strategic rationale. Scott Lucas, a professor of U.S. and
international politics at the University College Dublin’s Clinton Institute,
argued that Trump’s foreign policy remains anchored in short-term political and
economic gain.
“Trump
is only going to get involved in those issues on the basis of: do I benefit
from this economically or politically?” Lucas said. That, he added, represents
a rupture with decades of bipartisan consensus around rule-of-law-based
diplomacy and global leadership.
Redrawing
the Trade Map
Perhaps
the most dramatic shift under Trump has come in the realm of trade. His
administration has revived and expanded a slate of tariffs affecting nearly
every major U.S. trading partner, aiming to reshape economic ties and insulate
American industries.
“The
U.S. has been ripped off for years and years,” Trump said, defending the
measures as necessary corrections to longstanding imbalances. He has rejected
calls for a unilateral reduction of tariffs on China, making clear that any
relief will be contingent on Beijing negotiating a new deal.
Supporters
say the approach has forced trading partners to reconsider their own economic
dependencies. “This is the most significant and impactful thing that he has
done, much faster than many observers expected,” Bohl said.
But
critics warn that the unpredictable nature of these policies has introduced volatility
into the global economy. “All of these countries, from China to the EU, are
having to redo the way that their trade networks work,” Bohl said, pointing to
rising uncertainty about whether these policies will endure.
A
Turn Toward Nationalism
Trump’s
disengagement from international bodies and agreements has become a defining
feature of his foreign policy. During his previous term, the U.S. exited the
Paris Climate Accord and severed ties with the World Health Organization. Now,
his administration is doubling down on a nationalist vision that places
American sovereignty above international obligations.
“Trump
is acting like the isolationist, abandoning our allies at the same time,” said
Fish. He sees echoes of 19th-century “great power politics,” in which powerful
nations carved the world into spheres of influence, a trend he fears could
resurface, particularly with Russia asserting claims over its former Soviet
neighbors.
Lucas
argued that Trump’s approach has blurred the line between democratic governance
and autocratic rule. “Trump appears much more of an autocrat,” he said.
The
administration contends that its strategy is about restoring executive
authority, cutting bureaucracy, and prioritizing the interests of American
communities. Officials frame it as part of Trump’s broader campaign promise to
“drain the swamp” and return power to local governments.
Expansionist
Rhetoric
One
of the more controversial elements of Trump’s foreign policy is what some
analysts call “symbolic expansionism.” From suggesting the U.S. acquire
Greenland to floating the idea of adding Canada as the 51st state, Trump has
raised eyebrows with talk of territorial growth.
Before
returning to office, Trump described Greenland as “a wonderful place” and said
its acquisition would bolster U.S. national security. On Canada, he claimed
that annexation would ensure economic stability and provide a buffer against
“Russian and Chinese ships.”
Bohl
sees such comments as largely rhetorical. “They’re not terribly strategic in
the way they are being implemented,” he said. “He’s not serious at the moment
about moving into Panama or Greenland.” Still, Bohl warned that the language
reflects a growing narrative around competition for resources and influence,
even if it lacks a coherent expansionist agenda.
Peacemaker
or Power Broker?
Trump
has often portrayed himself as a unique diplomatic force, capable of ending
entrenched conflicts through personal outreach and dealmaking. He has promoted
ceasefire efforts in Gaza and claimed he could end the war in Ukraine quickly
if given the opportunity.
But
analysts remain skeptical.
Lucas
suggested such overtures are often more about legacy than substance, particularly
in relation to former President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. “When it
comes to resolving conflicts such as the war in Ukraine, his strategy has
leaned toward personal outreach rather than multilateral negotiation,” Lucas
said.
Fish
was more critical, arguing that Trump’s proposals in Ukraine mirror the
Kremlin’s own talking points.
“Trump
wants to hand Crimea over to Russia legally, to allow Russia to keep the
territories that it now occupies, to demilitarize Ukraine, which means
dismantling Ukraine’s military, and to seek [President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy’s
resignation,” Fish said. “This can’t possibly be the basis for peace. The
Ukrainians will never accept it. The Europeans won’t. Most of the world won’t.”
Still,
Trump has defended his position as one grounded in humanitarian urgency. “Two
thousand people have been killed every single week,” he told Congress. “I want
it to stop.”
An
Uncertain Trajectory
Whether
Trump’s foreign policy will be sustainable, or reshape global relations in a
lasting way, remains an open question. What is clear, analysts say, is that the
U.S. is undergoing a redefinition of its global role.
“The
U.S. is stepping away from being the anchor of the liberal international
order,” Bohl said. “What comes next is far more uncertain.”
With additional agency reports
Post a Comment