The return of Donald Trump to the White House in 2025 signals more than just a change in leadership; it heralds a potential reshaping of the global geopolitical landscape. Characterized by an “America First” approach, this administration’s foreign policy decisions are poised to disrupt existing alliances, challenge international norms, and prioritize a transactional view of international relations. While the full extent of these changes remains uncertain, this article aims to examine key areas such as trade, international organizations, and relations with major powers offers insights into the potential trajectory of global geopolitics under President Trump.
Trade Wars and Economic Nationalism
A cornerstone of the Trump administration’s foreign policy is its emphasis on economic nationalism and a skepticism towards the existing global trading system. Trump argues that the current system is rigged against the United States, leading to trade deficits and the offshoring of American jobs. To address these concerns, he has pledged to impose “universal” tariffs on imports and to match tariffs imposed by other countries on U.S. products. This “eye for an eye, a tariff for a tariff” approach, as he puts it, signals a potential escalation of trade wars and a departure from decades of trade liberalization. As seen during his first term, these policies can disrupt global supply chains, raise prices for consumers, and create uncertainty for businesses. Retaliatory measures from other countries could further exacerbate these effects, leading to a fragmented global economy where protectionism and bilateral deals replace multilateral cooperation. Critics like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condemn such aggressive trade practices, suggesting they ignite global trade disputes. Though it is possible that these tariffs are more to put pressure on trade partners as a “bargaining chip”, it is evident that Trump values tariffs as leverage for protecting America’s national interest.
Questioning International Institutions
Beyond trade, the Trump administration’s approach to international organizations reflects a broader skepticism towards multilateralism and a preference for unilateral action. The administration has already signaled its intent to withdraw from or re-evaluate its commitment to various United Nations bodies, including the Human Rights Council (UNHRC), UNESCO. This echoes Trump’s first term, during which the U.S. withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization (WHO). The reasoning behind these actions is based on concerns about national sovereignty, financial burdens, and the perceived ineffectiveness or anti-American bias of these organizations. Such moves could weaken international cooperation on critical issues such as climate change, global health, and humanitarian assistance, potentially leading to a more fragmented and less coordinated global response to these challenges. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres has put it, the multilateral system is already “gridlocked in colossal global dysfunction”. Trump’s policies can further exacerbate this situation and the ability of countries to address common security challenges, prevent conflicts, and promote peaceful coexistence. That being said, some sceptics of current multilateral system suggest that such a drastic shake-up of old systems is the best way to incite change, and help create programs and international bodies that more effectively fulfill their stated purposes.
Shifting Great Power Dynamics
The Trump administration’s foreign policy also entails a re-evaluation of relationships with major global powers, particularly China and Russia. While Trump has expressed a desire for warmer relations with Russia, his administration has also taken a confrontational stance towards China, accusing it of economic abuses, intellectual property theft, and unfair trade practices. This has led to a trade war, with tariffs imposed on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. However, it is hard to determine if Trump will act on this animosity, or if it is merely a tool to leverage China to create a better trade deal. While it is possible the trade war could end with the US on top, some worry that the US would become reliant on external actors such as China. Some view it as a “world-changing race” for economic dominance.
Trump’s administration is also focused on issues such as Chinese influence over operations in the Panama Canal. These actions are fueled by the administration’s claim that China did not hold up its end of various agreements. The question becomes, what is the most important: a stable relationship, or ensuring other countries follow through with their promises? This could lead to increased tensions and strategic competition between the two countries across various domains, including trade, technology, and military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. To counteract this, the Trump administration is likely to strengthen ties with other countries in the region to contain China’s influence, including maintaining close ties with Japan and pushing back on Chinese actions in the South China Sea.
Alliances Under Strain
The emphasis on “America First” and a transactional approach to foreign policy has raised concerns among long-standing U.S. allies, particularly in Europe. Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO allies for not spending enough on defense and has questioned the U.S. commitment to the alliance’s collective defense clause. This has fueled anxieties about the reliability of the U.S. as a security partner and has prompted some European countries to pursue greater strategic autonomy. Some analysts suggest that Trump’s style undermines established foreign policy structures, leading to erratic decision-making. The administration’s decision to impose tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico has also strained relations with key trading partners. These policies have left other countries wary of U.S. dominance. The effect of this strain can already be seen as countries like Canada and Mexico pause cooperation with the U.S.
Human Rights and Democracy Promotion
The Trump administration’s approach to human rights and democracy promotion has also generated controversy. Critics argue that the administration has downplayed human rights concerns in its interactions with authoritarian regimes while prioritizing U.S. economic and security interests. The decision to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council, for example, has been seen by some as a retreat from America’s commitment to promoting human rights globally. Moreover, there are concerns that the administration will redirect U.S. funds to ultra-conservative, faith-based local organizations, with ideological criteria influencing aid distribution. This shift could undermine efforts to promote gender equality, protect the rights of discriminated groups, and support civil society organizations working to advance democratic values. This could potentially isolate the United States and limit its ability to influence human rights practices in other countries. One could argue, on the other hand, that this is an opportunity for new human rights organizations to gain prominence and receive funding, allowing for innovative solutions for helping such populations .
In conclusion, the Trump administration’s foreign policy is poised to create a more unpredictable and contested global order. Its emphasis on economic nationalism, skepticism towards international institutions, and re-evaluation of relationships with major powers could lead to increased tensions, trade wars, and a weakening of international cooperation. While some argue that this disruption is necessary to shake up the existing system and advance U.S. interests, others fear that it will undermine global stability and erode America’s standing in the world. Only time will tell whether the Trump administration’s “America First” approach will ultimately serve to strengthen or weaken the United States’ position in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.
