Trumpism in the US Foreign Policy

Trumpism is a term that gained prominence during Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016 and came to be used widely throughout his presidency from 2017 to 2021 and beyond. It is a curious blend of cultural conservatism, right-wing populism, aggressive nationalism, economic protectionism, transactional diplomacy, and certain authoritarian tendencies, all shaped into a political discourse by Trump and his supporters in the United States.

At the heart of Trumpism as a foreign policy framework lies the doctrine of 'America First,' a guiding principle that places the US national interests above all else, often at the cost of traditional alliances and multilateral agreements. This unapologetically self-centred approach has led to significant shifts in the US diplomatic relations, trade practices, military engagements, and even commitments to climate action. These shifts are particularly evident in Trump's approach to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, relations with China and Taiwan, policies in the Middle East, and stance on climate action.

Ukrainian's Security and Sovereignty

Guided by his 'America First' policy, Trump advocates for reducing the US involvement in foreign conflicts. Throughout his 2024 presidential campaign, he expressed scepticism about sustained US military and financial support for Ukraine's defence against Russian aggression. He insists that further aid should depend on Ukraine's willingness to negotiate with Russia. He contends that Ukraine should be pressured into peace talks, and Russia should be warned that its refusal to engage in peace talks could lead to increased US military assistance to Ukraine – a dual-pressure strategy aimed at forcing both sides to negotiate while preserving the US strategic interests.

Trump's proposed peace plan includes creating a demilitarised zone along current battle lines and delaying or even cancelling Ukraine's NATO membership ambitions. This arrangement is likely to force Ukraine to concede Russian-occupied territories, a move that would compromise its sovereignty and security. Trump has also argued that strong US-Russia relations benefit both nations, implying that he might lift sanctions on Russia if a peace agreement is reached.

While this US approach could indirectly legitimise Russia's aggression, it could also embolden Russia to further challenge the Western resolve and possibly escalate its influence across Europe. In the process, it could not only weaken NATO's open-door policy but also sow doubt among European allies about the reliability of the US support, ultimately demoralising the alliance.

China may view this reduced US involvement in Europe as an invitation to test American commitments to its allies, such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, potentially triggering a profound shift in global security dynamics. If the US fails to uphold international norms around national sovereignty, it risks eroding global confidence in its role as a reliable and responsible partner. This could be particularly unsettling for nations that rely on American support during conflicts or territorial disputes, diminishing their trust in the US assurances and potentially destabilising regional alliances.

Confronting China's Regional Ambitions

The US stance towards Taiwan has traditionally followed a policy of 'strategic ambiguity,' aimed at carefully balancing its relations with both Taiwan and China. This approach has historically allowed the US to support Taiwan's security without explicitly challenging China's claims over Taiwan. However, the Trump administration made a significant shift from this policy by showing an unprecedented interest in Taiwan's security through increased military support, substantial arms sales, and high-level visits by American officials, signalling a stronger commitment to Taiwan amid rising regional tensions.

One early indication of this shift came shortly after Trump's election in 2016, when he accepted a congratulatory phone call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. This move signalled a move away from the longstanding 'One-China' policy, under which the US leaders had previously avoided direct communication with Taiwanese officials to prevent tensions with Beijing. By engaging with President Tsai, Trump not only indicated a closer US-Taiwan relationship but also ushered in a more confrontational stance toward China and its claims over Taiwan.

Accentuating this shift, the Trump administration declassified the 'Six Assurances' issued in 1982 by former President Ronald Reagan. This declassification significantly reassured Taiwan, marking the US commitment to Taiwan's security amid China's growing assertiveness. These assurances included pledges that the US would not pressurise Taiwan to negotiate with Beijing and would not compromise Taiwan's security to improve its relationship with China.

Despite the strong show of support for Taiwan, Trump did occasionally suggest that Taiwan should assume more financial responsibility for its defence, raising concerns about the reliability of US support in the event of Chinese aggression. His rhetoric often reflected a transactional approach to international relations, leaving many to question the reliability of the administration's commitment to Taiwan's security and whether the US assistance could be counted on in a crisis.

Building on his confrontational stance toward China, Trump bolstered the US military presence in the South China Sea to challenge China's territorial claims and assert US interests in the region. The Biden administration continued this approach, conducting joint military exercises with allies like the Philippines, Japan, and Australia. During his second term as President, Trump is likely to adopt an even more aggressive stance in the Indo-Pacific, heightening efforts to curb China's growing regional influence and intensifying tensions in the South China Sea.

Trade Wars and Global Markets

President Trump launched a trade war with China during his first term as part of his 'America First' agenda. By imposing steep tariffs on numerous Chinese imports, he tried to reduce the US trade deficit and protect American industries from what he termed China's unfair practices, including intellectual property theft and currency manipulation. China retaliated with its own tariffs on American goods, impacting key sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, and technology. This tit-for-tat escalation disrupted global supply chains, ignited market uncertainty, and raised serious concerns about the risk of a broader global trade conflict.

During his 2024 election campaign, Trump proposed the elimination of individual income tax with the suggestion of financing it through increased tariffs on imports, particularly imports from China. This plan would impose even steeper tariffs than those of his previous administration. If enacted, such a tariff reform could ignite a global trade war, likely driving up consumer prices as importers pass on higher costs. Additionally, it could lead to job losses in export-dependent sectors, worsening economic challenges and creating widespread market instability.

In view of stimulating economic growth by reducing tax rates for individuals and corporations in the US, Trump introduced the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), slashing corporate tax from 35% to 21% and significantly reducing individual income tax. While these tax cuts were meant to result in increased investment and job creation, critics argue that they disproportionately benefited the corporations and the wealthy, heightening income inequality. Furthermore, the TCJA is expected to significantly reduce federal revenue, potentially increasing the national debt and imposing fiscal burdens on future generations. This fiscal strain could impact US foreign aid and investment, affecting developing nations that rely on American support.

Controversial Middle Eastern Diplomacy

In a sharp departure from traditional US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Trump made his pro-Israel stance unmistakably clear with his 2017 decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. For decades, the US policy and international consensus held that the status of Jerusalem should be resolved through negotiations between Israel and Palestine. Strengthening his support to Israel further, in 2018, he relocated the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a move that met with violent protests in Gaza and the West Bank and criticism from Arab countries and international organisations, including the United Nations. Palestinians condemned these decisions as a betrayal of their claim to East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state. In prioritising immediate diplomatic gains over long-term peace efforts, Trump's actions effectively distanced the US from its historical role as a neutral mediator in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

In 2019, the Trump administration further signalled its support for Israeli territorial claims by recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights – land captured from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and widely regarded by the international community as occupied. This decision not only contradicted global consensus but also escalated regional tensions, drawing widespread condemnation from Arab states and deepening the divide in the Middle East.

In 2018, to push the Palestinians toward negotiations on terms favourable to Israel, the Trump administration announced significant cuts to the US aid for Palestinian organisations and closed the Palestinian Liberation Organization's office in Washington, DC. In 2020, Trump unveiled his "Deal of the Century," a proposed two-state solution that was widely criticised for heavily favouring Israeli interests. The plan included recognising Israeli sovereignty over West Bank settlements and offering a Palestinian state with limited autonomy. While it included economic incentives for Palestinians, many viewed it as an ultimatum rather than a genuine peace proposal, effectively sidelining the possibility of meaningful negotiations.

In his second term, possibly in a post-Hamas period, Trump is likely to push even harder for the two-state solution, the realisation of which alone could position him as a strong candidate for a Nobel Peace Prize!

Recently, during Israel's military operations in Gaza, Trump expressed strong support for Israel's right to defend itself, stating that Israel must "finish the problem." His refusal to advocate for a ceasefire or a long-term peace strategy hints at continued, unyielding support for Israel as he begins a second term. This stance has the potential to further inflame Israeli-Palestinian tensions and increase instability across West Asia, leaving the region vulnerable to prolonged conflict and diminished prospects for diplomatic resolution.

The 2020 Abraham Accords, a series of agreements brokered by Trump to normalise relations between Israel and several Arab nations, represented a major realignment in Middle Eastern diplomacy. Although hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough for strengthening economic and security alliances, particularly against Iranian influence, the Accords faced criticism for bypassing the Palestinian issue entirely. By focusing on strategic gains, the Accords overlooked the deeper, unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict, raising doubts about their sustainability and capacity to foster long-term peace. Nevertheless, in his second term, Trump will likely focus on strengthening existing Accords and pursuing new normalisation agreements.

In 2018, the Trump administration withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, arguing that the JCPOA is incapable of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and addressing its ballistic missile program and regional activities. He reimposed all the withdrawn economic sanctions on Iran, isolating it diplomatically and economically, forcing it to renegotiate the nuclear deal on the US terms or abandon its nuclear activities altogether. The new Trump administration is expected to adopt an even tougher stance on Iran moving forward.

Trump has an aggressive stance on the Axis of Resistance – a coalition of Iranian-backed groups opposing the US and Israeli influence in the Middle East. He has been and will continue to be determined to counter Iran's regional ambitions and its support for militant groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and various militia factions in Iraq and Syria. The assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's Quds Force, in 2020 was a clear sign of his willingness to use force against Iranian leadership and its network of proxies. Perhaps a more action-packed chapter could unfold in this geopolitical drama.

The Climate Policy Crisis

As the world's two largest greenhouse gas emitters, the US and China have historically played pivotal roles in shaping global climate negotiations, especially leading up to the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Obama administration marked a period of strong US commitment to climate action, pledging to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by 26–28% below 2005 levels by 2025 and specifically targeting carbon emissions from power plants by a 32% reduction by 2030. In addition, Obama's leadership saw substantial investment in renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar, supporting a shift toward cleaner energy sources and a more sustainable economy.

In alignment with the Paris Agreement, the Obama administration also committed to the Green Climate Fund, a global effort to mobilise $100 billion annually by 2020 to aid developing countries in their transition to sustainable practices. The US pledged $3 billion to the fund as an initial contribution as a sign of commitment to collaborative global climate efforts and supporting the developing world in mitigating and adapting to climate impacts.

In stark contrast, the Trump administration took a highly sceptical stance on climate science. Trump often dismissed the scientific consensus on climate change, at times calling it a 'hoax' and downplaying its impacts on global ecosystems and economies. His administration's stance marked a departure from prior US commitments to climate action, culminating in the announcement of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017. Trump argued that the agreement unfairly burdened the American economy and posed a disadvantage in global markets. The decision took effect the day after the 2020 presidential election, making the US the first nation to formally exit the Paris Agreement.

Trump's climate policy centred on promoting fossil fuel production and minimising environmental regulation, emphasising energy independence and short-term economic growth over long-term sustainability. Over 100 environmental protections were rolled back during his term, including key restrictions on carbon emissions from power plants and vehicles. The Trump administration also lifted limits on oil and gas exploration, even in protected areas, while criticising renewable energy as economically damaging and labelling it a "green new scam" aimed at distorting the energy market. This approach prioritised immediate economic gains over environmental responsibility, with a focus on fossil fuels as the cornerstone of the US energy policy.

When Joe Biden took office in January 2021, one of his first actions was to recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement, signalling a renewed dedication to climate action. Biden's administration has set ambitious targets, including reducing the US greenhouse gas emissions by 50–52% below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving a net-zero emissions economy by 2050. These goals align with the broader international community's efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change and promote sustainable practices.

As Trump assumes office for a second term, questions arise about the future direction of the US climate policy. The global community closely watches his stance on climate action, aware that another shift in the US commitment could have significant implications for global climate goals. Trump's return to office brings uncertainty about the consistency of the US climate action, with a chance that the US may once again step back from its international climate commitments in favour of a domestic economic focus.

Trumpism has significantly reshaped the US involvement in global security, trade, and climate policies. As Trump begins his second term as President, the world watches with intense anticipation, uncertain whether the continued rise of Trumpism will yield positive or negative consequences on the global stage.