In 2025, President Donald Trump returned to the White House, re-engaging the “America First” principle and refocusing the United States’ international relations agenda. The new emphasis is on national sovereignty, economic protectionism, and transactional diplomacy. The impact of Trump’s foreign policy approach has begun to reverberate across alliances, trade relationships, and the global order—all while seemingly finding support among American voters.
This analysis of the first few months of Trump’s new presidential term addresses the following topics: A discussion of Trump’s approach; the international community, international organizations, multinational firms, states, and non-state actor responses; and finally, the implications of Trump’s 2025 approach to global governance.
🚨 HE SAID IT PERFECTLY.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 7, 2025
"We're going to have a DOMNINO EFFECT of countries all over the globe shaping up, or they're going to have to live with a permanent situation where America is no longer going to be the CHUMP.
"And President Trump is resetting the global trading system,… pic.twitter.com/nTNjnKclkx
The Core of America First: Sovereignty and Economic Nationalism
A Shift from Liberal Internationalism
Trump’s 2025 foreign policy relies on “sovereigntist” ideology – a worldview that places U.S. core interests at the centre of its foreign policy decisions at the expense of a rules-based international order. This marks a definitive departure from the post-Cold War, in which the U.S. championed the preservation of global norms and multilateralism. Rather, Trump’s foreign policy relies on asking the question: “Does this policy serve America’s core national interests?”
Economic Protectionism and Trade Wars
A prominent feature of the 2025 foreign policy strategy is a pursuit of aggressive economic nationalism. The most recognizable example is Trump’s imposition of a 104% tariff on Chinese imports in 2025, which surprised both friend and foe, and intensified trade tensions. The administration has also threatened additional tariffs on countries imposing digital services taxes, souring the U.S. economic relationship with both Europe and the Pacific.
Supporters argue these measures protect American workers and industries from unfair competition, while critics warn they risk igniting trade wars, disrupting global supply chains, and fueling inflation.
Strained Alliances and the Erosion of Trust
NATO: Burden-Sharing or Burden-Shifting?
Trump’s insistence that NATO allies “pay their fair share” for defense has returned with vigor. He argues that the US has shouldered a disproportionate share of the alliance’s defense spending while pressing European allies to increase their contributions. While some allies willingly agreed to increase their budgets in time for NATO 2030, others remain hesitant to increase military spending as they cite economic limitations and uncertainty about US commitments amidst growing distrust of the US.
Moreover, Trump’s transactional approach has created more tension within NATO by prompting European leaders to publicly question the credibility of the US security guarantee. If European leaders continue to view the US ambiguously, America’s bilateral relationships with NATO allies and partners will be directly at risk. EU and NATO member countries see themselves as durable locations of US global engagement and leadership, yet in an unreliable way. Trump’s transactional ideas threaten the core cohesion of the US NATO Alliance.
Indo-Pacific Realignment
The Trump administration also sought to formalize relationships with India and Japan by normalizing joint military exercises and arms agreements, which have provided some balance to China in the region. With the simultaneous inclination to reduce US forces in Korea, partners remain uncertain about maintaining a US military presence, which unduly heightens the risk for the partner nations if the US presence in Korea diminished.
Global Perception: Unpredictability as Policy
Trump’s “I may, I may not” disposition is deemed a negotiating tactic in order to keep competitors, rivals, and adversaries off balance by enabling him with the capability to appear credible by demonstrating improvisation. In this way, those who support Trump label this uncertainty as negotiation, but for many allies, this is not navigable, It undermines the credit they attribute to US leadership.
Redefining U.S. Foreign Aid and Global Engagement
Executive Order 14169: Foreign Aid on Pause
In 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14169, which suspended most U.S. development assistance for a period of 90 days. The ostensible aim was to align foreign assistance with “American interests,” which was met with a flurry of criticism from countless humanitarian organizations and its development partners. Many warned that suspended aid projects would seriously damage the lives of vulnerable populations, especially in Africa, Southeast Asia, and parts of Central America.
America’s Voice Abroad: One Unified Direction
A new executive order directed officials to create a “unified voice” for America’s messages abroad, it reaffirmed the President’s direct control of U.S. Government diplomatic personnel when using the authority of the office to implement U.S. foreign policy. The Secretary of State would work to reform the foreign service so that only the best of the best representatives are in service of U.S. interests and that diplomatic actions are consistent with what the President wanted to do.
Transactional Diplomacy: Peace Deals or Power Plays?
Middle East: The Abraham Accords and Beyond
Trump has promoted a Middle East strategy. The Trump Administration’s goals, in this sphere, were to take the Abraham Accords to the next level with an emphasis on bringing Saudi Arabia into the accords. Additionally, they had moved away from involving U.S. forces in large-scale military interventions in Iraq and Syria and required their partners to emphasize expert counter-terrorism capacity and nurture a smaller army of strategic partners.
Russia and Ukraine: No More “Blank Checks”
In regard to Ukraine, Trump has reframed American support as a strategic calculus versus a moral story. He has made clear that there would be “no blank checks” from his administration to Kyiv, and has pressured European countries to take responsibility for European defense. At the same time, Trump’s people are looking into incentives like lifting sanctions to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war – all while sparking disagreement among NATO members who worry that doing so will negatively impact unity in the alliance.
Stakeholder Statements and Global Reactions
Trump Administration
- Donald Trump:
“America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration… My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else. Has to be first. Has to be. That will be the foundation of every single decision that I will make.” - On NATO:
“Allies must pay their fair share, or America will reconsider its commitment.” - On Trade:
“We will not allow China to continue taking advantage of American workers and businesses.” - On Foreign Aid:
“American taxpayer dollars must be spent in line with U.S. interests.”
Allies and Critics
- European Leaders:
Worrying U.S. unpredictability and transactionalism will undermine trust and restrain collective defense.
- Asia-Pacific Partners:
Support closer relations but are concerned about U.S. reliability and the repercussions for military presence reduction.
- NATO Officials:
Some support increased defense spending and others believe the cohesion of the alliance is at stake.
- NGOs and Humanitarian Organizations:
Caution cuts to aid will harm vulnerable communities and communicate retreat from global leadership.
- Foreign Policy Experts:
Warn that unilateral policy measures could bolster adversaries like China and Russia and undermine global stability.
The Global Fallout: Opportunities for Rivals and Erosion of Order
China and Russia Step In
China and Russia are poised to take advantage of America’s draw down from multilateralism and global leadership. China is positioning itself to be a more reliable economic partner for countries that are alienated by U.S.-imposed tariffs (a form of economic coercion), while Russia is taking advantage of internal NATO divisions, as well as fissures within the West, to further its own strategic aims.
Weakening of the Rules-Based Order
Trump’s dismissal of “globalist” institutions and skepticism of the U.N. barely provides a semblance of a post-World War II international order. Critics of the “America First” approach to foreign policy worry that it will create regional instability in fragile regions of the world, will create human rights victims, and create an environment of “might makes right” with respect to global affairs.
2025 in Focus: Recent Developments
- Tariffs/Trade Wars: The 104% tariff on certain Chinese imports has resulted in China taking retaliatory measures, which cut into global supply chains and have, if nothing else, raised prices for American consumers.
- NATO Uncertainty: The ongoing debates regarding NATO countries and their military spending, as well as recent U.S. commitments, has caused most European countries to consider different security arrangements.
- Foreign Aid Cuts: The cutbacks on foreign aid projects means that many humanitarian organizations in this space have had to search for their own funding and assume some of the responsibilities that any funding cuts created. Most warned that increased suffering will occur in fragile regions of the world as a result.
- Middle East Realignment: The U.S. and its Middle East allies’ attempts to expand Abraham Accords continues, not to be forgotten by I – S curve of engagement. Engagement must be cautious, and much emphasis is placed on seeking transactional benefits for the U.S.
- Russia-Ukraine Diplomacy: The U.S. signals willingness to negotiate with Russia, sparking debate about the future of Western unity and support for Ukraine.
Redefining America’s Global Role
Trump’s “America First” foreign policy in 2025 has fundamentally altered the U.S approach to alliances, trade, and global engagement. While proponents contend that it safeguards American interests and re-establishes sovereignty, opponents argue that it weakens relationships developed over decades, undermines the rules-based order, and provides opportunities for competitors to reformulate the globe. At a time in which the world is facing a new reality, the long-term effects on international stability and U.S. leadership are still to be determined – but its repercussions on a global level are already evident.
