Since his return to the U.S. presidency, Donald Trump has surpassed expectations. He captured global media attention with his provocative statements and significant decisions. Among these, the most impactful has been the suspension of numerous U.S. aid and development initiatives. This freeze resulted in immediate consequences. Even with some exemptions now established, it is probable that the starving population in Ethiopia will not receive the crucial famine relief; food is decaying in African ports while constitutional disputes regarding executive authority unfold in Washington.
In Africa, the US has been funding vital malaria prevention initiatives and HIV/AIDS medication programs. However, Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency has unjustly interfered with these efforts.
Many instances of imprudent policy choices exist. Among them, Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change stands out for its long-term repercussions. He also rolled back several policies from the Biden administration and removed the phrase “climate change” from various government websites. Additionally, Trump has sought to intimidate Mexico and Canada by threatening a 25% tax on all imports from both countries. He further enacted a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports entering the US.
Additionally, Trump’s comments regarding Ukraine, Gaza, and Panama warrant attention. His recent meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky sparked significant concern globally. Trump has reiterated his support for Putin’s narrative and Russian government agendas, which is concerning for many.
What strategy is Trump using?
Many are inclined to label Trump as a chaos merchant lacking a coherent strategy. This perspective suggests that when confronted with challenges or criticism, he responds by intensifying threats and ramping up insults.
Consequently, conventional wisdom suggests that the most effective approach with Trump is to flatter and amuse him and then bide time until his attention shifts to another target.
It’s important to recognise that presidencies involve large teams. It comprises numerous individuals, departments, and agencies—not just one leader. Additionally, a vast institution like the US Defense Department, which employs two million people and has military bases in at least 80 countries, develops its enduring mindset. Consequently, this often leads presidents, even those as distinct as Obama and Trump, to uphold many comparable military policies and approaches.
Many view Trump as a staunch conservative nationalist who advocates for a strong American presence in global politics. He emphasises the efficacy of tough rhetoric. He also displays military strength to influence other nations.
Previous Republican presidents, especially Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, embraced a so-called “cowboy” approach. This stance dismisses the notion of the US leading a liberal international order. It is a concept championed by their Democratic rivals. My analysis points out the continuities among Reagan, Bush, and Trump, emphasising their arrogance and ignorance in engaging with the broader world.
Alike, yet distinct
Nevertheless, certain aspects of Trump stand out as notably different. Before his second term, Trump’s foreign policy was unpredictable. It contained extensive rhetoric towards various leaders of countries. He warned North Korea of “fire and fury and, frankly, power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.” However, yet later remarked to a gathering of supporters, “We fell in love. No, really. He wrote me beautiful letters.”
Speculation suggests Trump is adopting a 19th-century ‘great game’ geopolitical stance regarding Russia and possibly China. This term essentially refers to imperialism. It is a frequently overlooked lens through which to view American foreign policy, especially during Trump’s second term.
According to experts, Trump generally displays a tendency towards revenge and cruelty, which is evident in Musk’s DOGE project. Nevertheless, labelling the second Trump administration as fascist or merely fascistic is a nuanced debate among scholars.
Five weeks into Trump’s second administration, several of the most harmful proposals from last year’s unofficial campaign manifesto, Project 2025, are being implemented. Many hardline conservatives have long sought to dismantle America’s foreign aid and development programs, and this is occurring at an alarming speed.
The future that transforms rhetoric into reality is difficult to foresee completely, yet many of Trump’s statements this year unmistakably exhibit imperialistic and fascistic tendencies. He does not need to disregard the Constitution or embody a classic fascist to be a profoundly hazardous president. Simply being an authoritarian—a role he openly accepts—is concerning enough.
