Trump’s Second Act: How His Return Could Reshape U.S. Foreign Policy
Share
Donald Trump is back. In a twist of history that no one could have predicted a few years ago, he’s become the second man in U.S. history to reclaim the presidency with a non-consecutive term—a feat last seen with Grover Cleveland over a century ago- and the first republican candidate to take the popular vote since 2004.
Sporting his "America First" doctrine like a badge of honor, Trump returns to an America and a world that has shifted dramatically, yet his approach remains firmly rooted in the same values: sovereignty, self-interest, and a rejection of multilateral constraints. With the global stage set for a new chapter, Trump stands ready to steer U.S. foreign policy in direction that departs sharply from Biden’s internationalist approach.
The question looming over the world’s capitals is simple: How far will Trump go? Favoring bilateralism over complex alliances, his agenda will likely send shockwaves through diplomatic halls from the Middle East, to Europe and Asia. He’s prepared to sidestep the constraints of global agreements and push U.S. interests forward with a force that promises to shake old partnerships.
In an early glimpse at what Trump’s return could spell for global diplomacy, we dive into what he’s pledged to do, what he’s done before, and what we might expect next.
Looking Back to Move Forward
To anticipate where we’re heading, it helps to understand where we’ve been. Trump’s first term approach (2017-2021) caught established alliances off guard and redefined how the United States engaged with the world.
His foreign policy sent shockwaves through the international system, as he pulled away from long-held agreements, upended traditional alliances, and pursued a relentless path toward transactional, and sometimes unpredictable, diplomacy.
During those years, Trump withdrew from various multilateral pacts, arguing they tethered the U.S. to agreements that served others’ interests more than America’s. He pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, calling it an unfair economic burden on American industries. He abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a strategic economic pact intended to counterbalance China’s influence in Asia. Even the historic Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was abandoned, sparking concerns about a potential arms race. Trump’s message was clear: America would no longer be bound by deals that he deemed imbalanced or disadvantageous to U.S. interests.
In NATO, Trump made more waves, questioning the very foundation of mutual defense that had underpinned the alliance for decades. He demanded that European nations carry their financial weight or risk losing U.S. protection—a move that shook transatlantic trust and sowed doubts about the strength of NATO itself.
His administration’s approach to the United Nations was similarly disruptive. Trump pulled funding from various U.N. programs, sidelining initiatives that conflicted with his stated priorities, signaling that U.S. contributions would be conditional on compliance with his administration’s aims.
On trade, Trump’s approach was a significant turn. He withdrew from or renegotiated major trade agreements to boost American industries, imposing broad tariffs and staking out an adversarial stance in economic dealings, particularly with China. His presidency marked a retreat from global influence-building, replaced by a defensive, protectionist strategy that focused inwardly rather on maintaining external influence.
Campaign Promises or Déjà Vu?
If Trump’s 2024 campaign trail rhetoric is any indicator, his second term is likely to echo—and potentially intensify—the approach of his first. On stage, his speeches brimmed with the same resolve to break free from global entanglements and reassert America’s dominance. “America First” remains his guiding principle, as he pledged to prioritize national interests and limit international commitments, signaling that his approach may remain as inwardly focused as before.
On security, Trump painted a clear adversarial stance against China while hinting at a more tempered, almost conciliatory approach to Russia. His promise to end the Russia-Ukraine war contrasts starkly with the Biden administration’s unwavering support for Ukraine, suggesting he may scale back military aid and push Europe to bear the brunt of the conflict. And NATO? In Trump’s eyes, it remains a burden that Europe must earn the privilege of, a familiar refrain from his last term.
The Middle East was another consistent theme, where Trump’s pro-Israel stance and hardline approach to Iran seem poised to make a comeback. Trump has been unequivocal that his policy will be one of isolation and sanction, aligning closely with his previous moves to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal and bolster alliances through the Abraham Accords.
On climate, Trump’s position couldn’t be more distinct from Biden’s. Where Biden embraced ambitious climate goals, Trump remains an outspoken critic, expressing his intention to disengage from any climate agreements that he sees as an impediment to American energy independence. His return could see a shift back to fossil fuels and away from climate diplomacy, a throwback to his previous term’s energy policies.
In short, Trump’s campaign suggests that his second term will be less about shifting course and more about reinforcing the path he began in 2017. His consistency in messaging points to a resolute, hardened stance, regardless of the ripple effects this may have on U.S. international standing, global stability or international diplomacy.
Doubling Down on America First
Using Trump’s campaign statements as a guidepost until we have concrete policy frameworks in place as he assumes office, his foreign policy will likely mirror his previous term, but with heightened intensity, unrestrained by concerns of re-election.
We can expect a deepening of his commitment to “America First,” as he turns the country’s gaze inward while attempting to maintain a tight grip on the reins of international power. European NATO allies may have to brace for renewed pressure from the Trump administration, likely fraying transatlantic ties that Biden worked on rebuilding.
China will likely be met with even tougher rhetoric and actions, including escalated tariffs and policies aimed at 'decoupling' the U.S. from China economically. With the increased competition between the U.S. and China in the digital realm, particularly when it comes to AI and semiconductors, the widening berth between the two juggernauts may be fueled by Trump's adversarial approach.
Meanwhile, Russia may see in Trump an opportunity. In line with his America first policy, he will likely be reticent to invest more funds in a war that he perceives as extraneous to U.S. interests. Ukraine may find that pressure shifted from Russia toward it to present concessions in exchange for support.
In the Middle East, Trump’s overtly transactional approach could foster new dynamics, with both Israel and Arab governments viewing his return as favorable. While ideological concerns take a back seat, practical alliances may flourish, as states vie for favorable terms under Trump’s deal-making approach. Israel may find itself unburdened by even the limited criticism vocalized by Vice President Harris, and instead empowered by Trump’s more aggressive stance on Iran.
The Gulf States may also find a silver lining in Trump’s election; with Biden, there was a persistent threat of having human rights concerns or other ideological issues leveraged as tools to pressure governments in negotiations (although the Biden administration relented on those in the face of strategic interests), while with Trump the engagement is more openly transactional, which serves regional actors well.
As for multilateral organizations like the U.N. and WHO, we can expect a return to the patterns of Trump’s previous administration of diminished U.S. engagement and funding. His skepticism about their role, and his perception of their disproportionate effects on U.S. sovereignty drive his disengagement effort from their frameworks, opting to bypass them in favor of more direct routes to achieve U.S. interests.
Europe’s Crossroads: Time for a New Strategy?
As the dust settles on the election, and with Trump claiming victory, global leaders are recalibrating their strategies, with European nations facing some of the most immediate pressures.
Europe, which bet strongly on U.S. support and threw their lot it with the U.S. in late 2021 when they shifted toward the more aggressive U.S. approach to Russia -despite France and Germany’s initial reticence- find themselves suddenly having to reevaluate their choices. This could be the final push that drives Europe toward a more independent defense and foreign policy stance, a shift that may be long overdue.
When they drew the lines against Russia, disregarding the potential of a more Euro-centric collaborative approach to continental stability in favor of the more NATO centric U.S. led approach, the assumption was that the U.S. position would have continuity and persist as long as was needed for Europe and NATO to reassert their prime position on the continent.
This assumption finds itself challenged today. With Trump’s stated position on the Russia Ukraine war, and the likelihood of pressuring Ukraine into accepting Russian terms, coupled with his pressure on Europe through conditionalities within NATO cooperation mechanisms, Europe may find itself on unsteady ground.
An empowered Russia and a weakened less cohesive NATO would unbalance Europe’s calculations; as the assurances of continued U.S. support seem to dwindle, the power balance on the continent may witness shifts and changes that do not align with what Europe forecasted back in 2021.
There is a silver lining however, and one that might spur Eurocentric leaders to take the initiative to finally evaluate the value of a European-led continental, regional, and global security approach that is not as closely bound to NATO as its current approach.
This may lead in turn to a more independent European broader foreign policy approach, which would have significant value given the likelihood of a repeat performance of the first Trump term’s economic policies toward Europe.
On the economic side, Trump signaled that he intends to make Europe ‘pay a big price’ for trade with the US, leveraging tariffs and a reevaluation of trade terms more favorable to U.S. industries. Europe, that already went through this in Trump’s earlier term, may find itself seeking to reassess its vulnerabilities to the pendulum swings of U.S. foreign policy.
Russia and Ukraine: A Reversal of Fortunes?
As Ukraine's concerns about Trump's approach to the war mount, Russia might look at this changing tide as favorable. In transforming the U.S. approach to Ukraine, Europe, and NATO into a transactional engagement, Trump could be perceived as more open to negotiation.
Less bound by the ideological convictions and the outward-looking approach of his predecessor, Trump could be less inclined to commit the U.S. to large scale endless international engagements with no immediate tangible returns. Instead, he could opt for a fast resolution to the issue to reduce U.S. exposure to risks, and extended financial commitments. He may favor, or even press, a deal between the two nations even if that risks a loss of position for Ukraine -and by extension Europe and NATO.
Trump may look at the European quagmire as an avoidable and distant problem that should not require persistent U.S. involvement; his views on Europe investing more into its own defense could translate into reduced support on the continent in what he perceives as problems irrelevant to U.S. interests.
The Middle East: Deals Over Ideals
In the Middle East, both Israel and Arab nations are looking at the silver lining in Trump's victory. The transaction driven nature of Trump’s diplomacy is well-suited to a region that’s more comfortable with deals than ideals.
Israel will count on Trump’s continued support, particularly as it is coupled with his disregard for international law and multilateral frameworks. Netanyahu however may find himself pressured by Trump to take conclusive steps to declare victory and conclude the war, because Trump could well seek to reestablish the previous dynamics in the region with the Gulf states in his pursuit of isolating Iran.
Forging a deal with Arab states in the current political climate, with unchecked Israeli military actions spreading throughout the region would be politically challenging; Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince stated that he would not move forward with Israel without the establishment of a Palestinian state, and other Arab leaders have been very cautious in appearing cooperative with the US on Israel due to the potential political ramifications.
The region that Trump will engage with in 2025 is not the same as the one he was involved in in his previous term. More volatile on one end, with the rampant havoc wreaked by Israel in Palestine and Lebanon, and with the tit for tat exchanges between Iran and Israel, and more cohesive on the other with the intensified engagement between officials from Iran and various Arab governments.
How the balance shifts remains to be seen, especially given the region’s shifting landscape, and the increased impetus of regional actors to shape the region in a way that aligns with their own outlooks and interests.
China’s Calculations: A Rivalry Reignited
Trump’s stance on China is unchanged and unequivocal; he adopted an aggressive economic policy in his first term, promised a continuation of this policy in his campaign and will likely pursue this policy moving forward. Despite being one of the most important trade partner for the U.S., neither country is under illusion as to the nature of their increasing competition, particularly when it comes to digital technology.
China has likely prepared for this scenario, hedging its bets and expanding its partnerships across the globe, becoming Europe’s second trade partner after the US, addressing its concerns with India on the disputed borders, and reinforcing its presence in the Global South on critical issues such as infrastructure development and AI. It has also infused more power into the emerging BRICS alliance, supporting its declarations and pushing for transnational trade independent of the U.S. dollar.
Trump’s aggressive approach to economic engagement with China, coupled with his reluctance to provide unconditional support to Taiwan, may spell a changing tide on the Taiwan front. Whereas his former administration tempered his transactional approach to Taiwan, this time around may be a little different. In his first term, he had already indicated that despite the U.S. rivalry with China that it presented a more important actor than Taiwan.
The dual approach of more aggressive economic policy and less intense defense and security approach may appeal to China in the coming years as it seeks to leverage what may be construed by many global actors as a less constructive global role by the U.S. to expand its own global influence.
An Era of Uncertainty: The Global Response to Trump 2.0
As Donald Trump reclaims the White House, his foreign policy appears to be geared towards the similarly inward-focused, fiercely protective stance of his first term.
His “America First” doctrine, invigorated not only by his sweeping victory but also by being the first republican president in two decades to win the popular vote, and being the second man in U.S. history to take two nonconsecutive terms, will likely be sharper in his second term than his first.
It promises to reinforce an approach marked by economic protectionism and a rejection of multilateral commitments, focusing on transactional international engagements rather than driven by long term priorities or ideological considerations.
There are overarching implications of these potential policy shifts however, not only for the upcoming U.S. administration but for the U.S. position within the global system in general. In an era of rapid geopolitical shifts, a foreign policy subject to abrupt swings with every electoral cycle may signal to allies and adversaries alike that the continuity once expected of U.S. leadership is waning.
A foreign policy that oscillates every four years would not instill a sense of continuity in partners and allies. For example, Europe’s decision to align with the U.S. led NATO position against Russia in 2022 now looms large, given the potential of reduced U.S. support for the continent that so strongly aligned itself with the Biden administration.
Europe, and other allies, may rethink long term commitments and ideological alliances with the US; the likelihood of future reversals may cause allies to rethink the long-term viability of U.S.-led alliances.
Similarly, the overtly aggressive and outwardly transactional approach to foreign economic policy may fuel the rise of BRICS. Already empowered by the perceived tendency of the U.S. to use sanctions and its economic hegemony as tools to pressure governments it sees as unaligned with its political visions, the more outwardly aggressive approach by Trump will make the idea of BRICS easier to sell. In providing alternatives to international banking systems largely dependent on the U.S. dollar, it may appeal to a broader audience than before.
On the multilateral stage, Trump’s approach of throwing U.S. weight around may, ironically, lead to waning U.S. influence and credibility, creating an opportunity to other actors to fill the void. It may also weaken these structures irrevocably and lead to a search for alternatives, giving rise to a more prominent role of regional and international blocs outside the current structures, further consolidating the rise of multipolarity.
How this plays out will largely depend on whom Trump appoints in his government. If he appoints a team that tempers his perspectives with foreign policy expertise and insights, the situation may not devolve quite as rapidly, while a team that echoes his outlook and positions may accelerate the pace considerably.
While his previous term and the campaign statements serve as general guideposts on what to expect during his second term, what will materializes remains to be seen.
Read next
Beyond Economics: Egypt’s Political Play at the D8 Summit
The Architect of Conflict? Mark Rutte’s Role in a Precarious Global Order
