A Second Trump Term : Shifts and Strategies in American Foreign Policy

Analysis

By Khachatur Eritsian

Without exaggeration, Trump’s first term presidency was unlike any other US administration in recent political memory. The tenure could be described with conspicuous adjectives as ‘radically different’ from foreign policies before and since to define personally Trump’s unprecedented stance on the crucial geo-strategic issues of the US foreign policy interests, particularly the adoption of ‘The America first’ position, that stands as a key component of his approach after being elected as 45^th president of the American superpower. It has encompassed a sceptical attitude towards International Organisations and Institutions, and the subsequent reduction of American international involvement and engagement with allies and partners, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and Iran’s nuclear deal with the distinct aim to prioritise domestic issues such as migration and trade. Thus, If Trump re-elected, it might signify again the transformation of the international security landscape and alteration of the regional and global dynamics. Yet, during his electoral campaign the republican president nominee has already outlined his foreign policy endeavours. To that end, the analysis of Trump’s first term presidency outcomes is required to strengthen the understanding of the nature and future of his administration’s disposition to key issues of international politics and trade. Here, this article would seek to identify the US foreign policy aims, implying Republican-led victory in the presidential election. The paper will be divided into three sections and will be focusing on the ongoing war in Ukraine, providing support to Israel and countering China’s growing economy and foreign policy ambitions.

Russia -Ukraine War

The 2024 US presidential elections are pivotal in global politics, with several foreign policy challenges demanding attention. From the perspective of the war in Ukraine, Trump's upcoming foreign policy priorities do not require colossal guesses as the protracted war that has been going on for two years has caused obvious discontent in the American political class and society. Experts view the initiative of achieving peace in Ukraine as a keystone as it aims to improve relations with Russia, severed since Biden took office. The resolution of the conflict and the establishment of a peace agreement hold significant importance for the former President, who has consistently expressed a willingness and capability to engage in negotiations with the President of Russia. The ex-President has explicitly stated that he does not wish to provide unilateral support to Ukraine, as this would exacerbate existing vulnerabilities. In contrast, a hard-line stance perpetuates a cycle of violence. The former President’s approach seeks to achieve a dual outcome, aiming for a resolution that benefits both parties involved in the conflict. Presumably influenced by the overarching philosophy of the Republican Party, numerous policymakers and politicians contend that the United States should reduce its financial contributions and supplementary aid to Ukraine, especially given that the Biden administration has already allocated approximately $75 billion in assistance to support Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.

According to a poll conducted at the end of 2023, almost half of Republicans claim that the US was allocating too much financial aid to Ukraine. In addition, Kyiv’s hope that under the Democrats the post-soviet state will be offered a NATO membership might vanish like a smoke ring and become a matter of the past if Trump wins the 2024 elections.

According to various estimates, the war has led to increased oil prices and energy bills in the country which has left the American populace dissatisfied and the United States has suffered huge financial losses, whereas several large economies have been known to limit or reject the use of the US dollar in trade. Other states refused to join sanction packages on Russia and submitted applications to join other economic unions, such as BRICS.  The Republican argument is that those funds could be invested in projects that will serve the American population, such as the construction of the ‘Great Wall’ which will prevent illegal migration to the US, that is taking place under the Biden Administration. In this case, Trump will likely abandon all military financing of Ukraine and redirect these funds to the most important issues of inner policy.

Lastly, the termination of NATO funding is not excluded, since Trump himself has repeatedly stated that contributions to the general financing of the military alliance are disproportionally unequal among all states. It can be assumed that he may choose to abandon close cooperation in NATO since Trump vowed to stop supporting his European allies if they continue to ignore the claims to increase the share investment into the military organisation. During 2016 presidential race Trump surprisingly stated that he might not oppose the breakup of NATO, during his alleged second term he could simply withdraw from the alliance. If partners do not increase their investments instead of merely meeting 2% of annual GDP on defence spending. As Barnes and Cooper suggest, what further fan the flames of fire is that

during private conversations with senior administration officials ex-president expressed his will to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Hence, based on the American foreign policy effort of Donald Trump during his first term, it could be concluded that the top priority for the Republican leadership might be domestic issues to invest more into American society and keep the country away from external security challenges, without wasting resources on foreign states to ensure the longevity of so-called ‘liberal international order’, popular since the end of the Cold War, which might cost America the loss of global domination.

Israel-Hamas War

Among other topics reviewed in the presidential debate, is the settlement of the long-lasting war between Hamas and Israel, as the US continues to play a significant role in addressing the regional conflicts in the Middle East. The primary achievement of Donald Trump’s first presidential term was the signing of the Abraham Accords, which recognized Israel's sovereignty and facilitated the establishment of bilateral relations between Israel and several Arab nations. Upon assuming office, Trump committed to employing all available instruments to reconcile the conflicting parties and to address their longstanding grievances, a pledge reminiscent of his assertions in 2016. However, as the United States navigates a precarious balance between peace and conflict with Iran and exhibits a lack of a coherent foreign policy framework, relations between Israel and its Arab neighbours have deteriorated. Recently, both Palestinian and Jewish communities have expressed concerns regarding escalating violence. The Republican nominee remarked that the Hamas attacks on Israel, along with Israel's extensive military response—which has received mixed reactions from the international community, with some deeming it beyond the bounds of moral and just warfare—would not have occurred under his administration. Despite his unwavering support for Israel, Trump has maintained that, through his principles outlined in "The Art of the Deal," he would seek to regulate Israel's actions within a legitimate framework that would minimize civilian casualties and suffering.

Yet, many experts claim that Trump’s stance on the Palestine issue was biased and favourable to Israel as much as previous administrations, centred on gradually diminishing the likelihood of Palestinian independence, withdrawing from the JCPOA deal with Iran and paying no regard to the Palestinian national concerns. Trump’s obvious efforts to impose its own model for a peace deal, naming himself as ‘the best friend that Israel has ever had’ does not leave many questions about how he would act if he inherited the conflict in January 2025. Some scholars of the field insist on the complete American alignment with Israel's interests to force Palestine to accept the peace talk results on Tel-Aviv’s terms. They refer to the US relocation of the American Embassy to Jerusalem and closing the Palestinian office in Washington as a hostile action and clear indications that the alleged negotiated deal will only facilitate Israel’s ambitions to establish control over the West Bank that kills Palestinian hope for a two-state solution once a time adopted by the UN security council. It appears to be that the Hamas attack was condemned by the ex-president, while Israel’s retaliation met with the aspirations that Tel-Aviv could win this war.

Notwithstanding the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict has always been one of the main priorities of the US foreign policy, unlike the war in Ukraine, Trump’s one-sided approach in favour of Israel calls under question his ability to negotiate the peace deal between the two parties. The distorted security landscape is not only detrimental for Hamas or Israel but for the US as well and it remains a mystery, how drastically the might situation change once he is back in office again, taking into consideration the political instability and turbulent security situation such as the recent assassination of the Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, and Trump’s previous ‘unfriendly’ experience with the Islamic republic of Iran.

Trade War with China

Another important foreign policy direction for the ex-president is definitely the US’s trade war with China, a confrontation that has already more than a decade of history, as the American political machinery oscillates between cooperation and competition.

Since China has started expanding its global influence and rapidly demonstrating stable economic growth, American policymakers took a firmer stance on Beijing making it a pivotal focus of its foreign policy efforts. As per Eleni Kapsokoli, apart from the trade war, the rivalry also includes the sphere of technological advancement, military capabilities and ideological influence, with the tensions in Taiwan being the most fragile issue of US-China relations. Some experts as Edward Ashbee and Steven Hurst suggest differentiating the continuity and the change in Trump’s stance on China with regards to the US foreign policy while he was in office. They argue that instead of characterising it as a transformation it would be much more appropriate to refer to it as disruptive and continuation. While they agree that Trump’s personal impact on the US regulation of its foreign policy in China has been significant, it is still premature to say that Trump has completely reversed relations with Beijing. Trump’s presidency was marked by the increase of public support for cooperation with China, even though the negative perception of the Asian giant among American society has been growing throughout the whole Trump presidency. For example, the imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods that helped the ex-president to create 261.000 manufacturing jobs in the USA, received bipartisan support in Congress, when nearly 60% of the Republicans considered that China has been a threat to American overseas interests. A recent statement by the Republican presidential nominee sheds light on the long-run measures to counter China’s ambition to take advantage of the American state by conducting illegal trade practices and intellectual property theft. If successfully re-elected, he promises to introduce the imposition of tariffs on Chinese products up to 60% and restrictions on investments in the US. In the sense of security challenges, China poses a notable threat to the US interests in South Asia and the Middle East, however under the Trump administration the US lacked the Asian version of NATO, and the QUAD has not become one of such yet. Hence, there are reasons to predict that during his second term, the ex-president will try to establish an effective and capable military alliance in the Indo-Pacific, particularly noting the deepening US-India defence cooperation and signing of bilateral agreements in recent history.

Under the guise of assistance, it is still a strategic ambiguity if the US under Trump Administration would interfere in the China-Taiwan dispute to defend the island in the event of Beijing’s offensive. In contrast to the Biden administration who repeatedly warned that American troops would back Taiwan if invaded by China, Trump surprisingly outlined that they did not guarantee any support for the island unless they agreed to pay compensation to Washington to receive a defence aid. Hitherto, the above discussion allows us to anticipate that the instability and the strategic competition in US-China relations is likely to continue despite both nations’ active cooperation in such areas as climate change or arms control. Under the Trump administration, the foreign policy proposals might leverage to its benefit, ranging from investing in domestic industries and other Asian countries such as India or strengthening military alliances in Indo-Pacific which might prove the judgements that the war between two global powers is inevitable.

To sum up, Trump’s first presidency was highlighted by the decline of the international liberal order led by the US and the shift of the focus on domestic politics prioritising American interests. The findings of this article show that if President Trump wins the elections, the conflict in Ukraine might have rapid implications which could predictably be the reduction or cancellation of additional military aid to Kyiv and NATO, the ceasefire and the long-awaited peace agreement between parties. The paper also suggests that Trump will seek to reinforce its support to Israel which might contribute significantly towards the longevity of the violence and further escalation in the Middle East. Lastly the paper predicts that the trade war with China is prone to continue growing despite the fact that Taiwan’s issue is of less importance for the Republican-led nominee. For future research, this article recommends analysing the premises of Trump’s political behaviour when facing different geopolitical challenges. The paper poses a question If that change have to do with the personal judgements of the ex-president or his decisions are coordinated within his political circles?

Disclaimer: This paper is the author's individual scholastic contribution and does not necessarily reflect the organization's viewpoint.