Trump’s America first approach disrupts global stability

President Donald Trump promises to reshape Washington’s foreign policy. The first term of President Trump is notable for the disruption of alliances, challenges to international institutions, and prioritization of American interests over multilateral commitments (2017–2021). As a result of Trump’s approach, or Trumpism, America’s global partners are unsettled.

The Trump 2.0 era has created challenges for international cooperation. As a result of Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords as well as the World Health Organization, the US has left both organizations. In addition to criticizing his NATO partners, he has threatened to withdraw the United States from the alliance. 

Trump’s actions clearly demonstrate his disdain for the rules-based global order. Despite the US dominance fading, countries like China, Russia, and Iran are declaring themselves more frequently. In an effort to reduce dependency on US-led institutions, they have cooperated with each other. As a counterweight to the G7 (US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan), the BRICS alliance is expanding (originally Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).

As NATO members begin to consider the US a necessary partner rather than an ally while facing an increasingly unreliable US and China-Russia’s no-limits axis, countries have begun to evade their bets as global stability becomes more tender. As a result of Poland’s announcement that it intends to acquire nuclear weapons, ASEAN members’ increased interest in BRICS, and Emanuel Macron’s renewed calls for strategic autonomy, US partners have had to rethink their dependence on the US.

Comprehending Trump’s foreign policy means looking at both US diplomatic relations and his relationship with national leaders. His recognition of world leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping repeatedly counters with his approaches of aggression toward Russia and China. This indicates that his exchanges with individual leaders influence US foreign policy as much as conventional national interests do.

Instead of relying on long-standing international agreements, Trump prefers direct, one-on-one Rather than prioritizing multilateral interests, the country prioritizes national interests and estate developer, he believes his deal-making skills give the US the upper hand. Trump is, therefore, more likely to rely on his personal perceptions than on the institutional wisdom of technocrats.

Josep Colmer, a Spanish political scientist, argues that Trump’s decision-making remains highly flexible, driven by instinct rather than ideology. As a reactionary and populist movement, Trumpism often disregards the traditional moral and democratic principles that have shaped American diplomacy.

It is argued by critics that this undermines the US’s global image. Nevertheless, pragmatism has its place in US tradition. By prioritizing national interests over multilateral cooperation, Trump is echoing strong Republican predecessors like Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon.

While many consider Trump to be an isolationist, his strategy is more nuanced. He has resurrected concepts such as the Monroe Doctrine, aiming to increase influence in Latin America and prevent old-world powers from intruding. His comments about potentially making Canada the 51st state, buying Greenland, and reasserting control over the Panama Canal exemplify this outlook. Moreover, his invocation of historical themes like Manifest Destiny adds context to his policy choices.

Nevertheless, his efforts to minimize US foreign engagement entail certain risks. Major tech companies, reliant on globalization, might oppose his policies. This corporate sway, combined with Trump’s impulsive and personality-centered approach to policymaking, renders a total US exit from the global arena improbable. Rather, his approach indicates a world order that continues to be global, yet functions according to his specifications.