PoliTact’s Analysis of Perception and Perspective

Context

President Donald Trump’s second term has ushered in a foreign policy that departs sharply from the liberal internationalist consensus of the post–Cold War era. Instead of multilateralism and institution-building, the Trump administration has embraced transactional diplomacy, tariff-based leverage, and a CEO-style approach to global power. The guiding logic is less about sustaining a rules-based order than about extracting concessions in a world Trump views as fundamentally zero-sum.

This orientation—the so-called Trump Doctrine—is reshaping the United States’ posture toward rivals and allies alike. He frames his foreign policy as an extension of his populist domestic agenda: “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) through trade realignment, industrial re-shoring, and hard bargaining. Yet while tariffs and deal-making remain his preferred tools, Trump also harbors ambitions for statesmanship, including a quixotic pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize. His attempts to mediate conflicts from Ukraine to South Asia illustrate both the promise and the peril of his approach. The result is a high-risk strategy that could redefine America’s global role—and shape the political landscape of the next U.S. elections.

Tariffs as Tools of Statecraft

During his first term, as Robert Blackwill of the Council on Foreign Relations had noted, Trump consistently makes major foreign policy decisions against the advice of seasoned advisors, amid unprecedented turnover in senior defense and diplomatic posts. A 2020 Senate Democratic report accused him of transforming U.S. foreign policy into a tool of personal and business interests, undermining alliances and institutions alike.

At the heart of Trump’s foreign policy is the use of tariffs and trade leverage. Where previous presidents relied on sanctions or diplomatic pressure, Trump employs tariffs as his signature instrument—against adversaries and allies alike.

During his first term, tariffs targeted China, the EU, and even Canada and Mexico. His second term has expanded this logic into a global bargaining strategy: tariffs are cast not merely as economic tools but as instruments of national security. Trump argues that tariffs protect American workers, pressure foreign governments into concessions, and restore industrial self-sufficiency.

The long-term effects remain uncertain. Economists warn that trade wars increase consumer costs and disrupt supply chains. Yet Trump has succeeded in re-framing tariffs as patriotic policy, appealing to swing-state voters who see globalization as a betrayal. Going into the next election cycle, this rhetoric will be central to his pitch: only a tariff-wielding America, he claims, can reclaim greatness.

French observer of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, once warned that democracies risk losing their moral compass when governed solely for material gain. Trump’s America First agenda, rooted in tariffs and short-term bargaining, embodies this danger. For him, alliances and norms are not ends in themselves but bargaining chips.

Trump as Peace and Deal Maker

The Ukraine-Russia Stalemate

Trump’s most high-profile attempt at statesmanship came with the August 2025 Alaska Summit, where he hosted Vladimir Putin on U.S. soil—the first such visit since 2007. Styled as CEO-style deal-making, the summit bypassed traditional diplomats. Analysts at Chatham House concluded that the meeting emboldened Putin, who intensified his war aims rather than compromising. The Council on Foreign Relations reported that Putin’s demands remained maximalist: Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of annexed territories.

Far from resolving the conflict, Trump’s intervention muddled U.S. messaging while alienating allies and NATO. Reuters called the summit a tilt toward Moscow, while AP noted it granted Putin undeserved legitimacy. European leaders have since moved to fill the vacuum, training Ukrainian forces and planning “reassurance forces” with limited U.S. backing. The Ukraine episode illustrates Trump’s foreign policy paradox: eager for dramatic breakthroughs, he often undercuts long-term credibility in pursuit of short-term optics.

Iran and the Quest for a Nobel Prize

Trump has repeatedly hinted that he seeks a Nobel Peace Prize, viewing it as the ultimate validation of his leadership. His prior efforts—such as the Abraham Accords in the Middle East—bolstered his claim but fell short of Nobel recognition.

Looking ahead, Trump is likely to focus on Iran’s nuclear program as the most dramatic arena for a potential peace deal. He has oscillated between threats of military action and promises of “the best deal ever.” His critics note that scrapping the 2015 JCPOA nuclear accord in his first term weakened U.S. leverage and pushed Iran closer to enrichment thresholds. Yet Trump now suggests he alone can broker a new accord, one tougher than his predecessors achieved.

Israel, Palestine, and the Limits of Transactionalism

Trump’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains deeply shaped by his earlier recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Abraham Accords. In his second term, he presents himself as uniquely capable of brokering a “grand bargain” between Israel and Arab states.

Yet Palestinians remain sidelined, and violence in Gaza and the West Bank has escalated. European analysts argue that Trump’s transactional diplomacy—focused on Arab-Israeli normalization—ignores the structural roots of Palestinian grievances. Without addressing Palestinian claims to sovereignty, however, any settlement risks being cosmetic.

The recent Israeli attack on Hamas negotiators in Doha has threatened the entire architecture of U.S. strategy in the Middle East. GCC now confronts the reality that Washington either could not—or would not—prevent Israel from striking within their borders. The strike risks driving Gulf nations to reconsider their reliance on U.S. guarantees and to explore alternative security alignments, as Saudi Arabia demonstrated by concluding a defense treaty with Pakistan.

Not only that, on the domestic front, the incident has reinforced the MAGA-Israeli rift. Many America First voters have started to question Trump’s policy of prioritizing Israeli support over American interests. How this plays out will be utterly consequential for the future of American politics.

India and Pakistan Tensions

Trump has also cited his efforts to mediate between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed rivals, as evidence of his unique statesmanship. After the recent four-day conflict, he offered to broker talks over Kashmir, even claiming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi requested U.S. intervention. While India denied such overtures, Trump continued to highlight his role in lowering tensions during border skirmishes. Irrespective, Trump revives this narrative, portraying himself as the only leader willing to bring two nuclear powers to the table.

For domestic audiences, the image of Trump as peacemaker between two nuclear states reinforces his argument that he alone can prevent catastrophic wars—an argument likely to feature prominently in his re-election campaign.

No More Soft Power

Traditional presidents—including many of the Founders—understood that America’s influence lay in both persuasion and force. George Washington counseled avoiding entangling alliances, but also promoting republican values. Trump’s policy inverts this balance: U.S. soft power—the tools of USAID, VOA—is slashed, replaced by tariffs, threats, and military posturing.

Removing soft power tools weakens long-term credibility. A legislative report warned Trump’s instincts make U.S. a “bystander in international efforts,” undermining democracy promotion and global cooperation. Institutions like WHO, climate accords, and multilateral forums are dismissed, even as authoritarian players fill the void.

Trump’s defense of using military power against Iran’s nuclear program—despite ongoing talks—underscores reliance on hard tools over diplomacy. His use of economic coercion—tariffs on allies and adversaries alike—challenges norms of trade reciprocity.

At home, this approach reflects his populist stance: reclaiming leverage against countries like India by imposing tariffs and stricter oversight of H1B Visa Program, while demanding Europe meet NATO obligations. While Trump distances U.S. from multilateralism, countries like China and Russia are deepening cooperation via BRICS, SCO, and other forums. Meanwhile, U.S. has alienated NATO and EU—evident in the diplomatic backlash after Alaska.

On the other hand, European efforts to assure Ukraine’s security—a potential buffer zone, peacekeepers—are gaining momentum and autonomy, though still needing U.S. support. Emerging countries view Trump’s U.S. as transactional and surveys by the European Council on Foreign Relations indicated that global responses to his second term reflect hedging, not alliance-building.

Trump’s foreign policy represents a break with the post-1991 liberal order, which emphasized collective security, open markets, and democratic values. Instead, his worldview echoes 19th-century great-power politics, in which spheres of influence and economic coercion dominate.

Trump’s posture harks back to classic great-power thinking. Scholars have noted that U.S. resistance to Russian or Chinese spheres of influence is a post–Cold War construct. Historically, the U.S. itself wielded Monroe Doctrine-style influence and accepted postwar spheres such as Eastern Europe under Soviet control. He appears to embrace that tradition—viewing global competition through the lens of zero-sum regional hierarchies, especially across Eurasia. He prioritizes a strategy of wedge-driving between Russia and China, rather than accepting a multi-polar order.

The conventional wisdom in think-tank literature—a world moving towards multi-polarity, with diplomatic messiness but strategic balance—is largely ignored. Some argue multipolarity may be more hazardous than bipolarity. However, Trump avoids such debates: instead, he seems to seek a revival of bilateral leverage, playing off great powers to U.S. advantage where possible.

Election Implications: Tariffs and Populism at Home

Trump’s foreign policy represents a radical experiment in realpolitik. It replaces liberal order with transactional bargaining, elevates tariffs to tools of statecraft, and prizes symbolic breakthroughs—especially peace deals that might burnish Trump’s legacy.

For the next election, Trump’s tariff-driven populism may prove a potent political weapon at home. His campaign will emphasize tariffs, industrial re-shoring, and economic nationalism as proof of “America First” success. Swing-state voters, especially in the Midwest, may respond favorably to tariff-driven protection of steel, autos, and manufacturing. Yet suburban and business constituencies could rebel against higher consumer prices and global instability.

But internationally, America risks being seen less as a reliable leader than as a transactional actor chasing deals and prestige. Allies face uncertainty about whether U.S. commitments will endure. The credibility gap—created by Trump’s personalized, ad-hoc decision-making—risks long-term erosion of American leadership, regardless of who wins in the next election.

Equally, it’s critical to keep in perspective the sense of exploitation which resulted in the America First Mantra, using which President Trump came into power for the second time. If America First policy does not produce economic dividends for common Americans in the short and long term, it will further complicate the domestic politics and confusion regarding its global role and future direction. In this, how Trump balances his foreign policy regarding Israel will be critical.

Related Articles

Israel Airstrike Targets Hamas Negotiators In Doha, Threatening Gaza Ceasefire Talks – Sep 15, 2025
Gaza Ceasefire Plan And US-Iran Tensions – Apr 26, 2025
Two-State Solution, Future Of Gaza, And Iran – Feb 25, 2025
The Escalating Middle East Crisis And President Elect Trump – Dec 25, 2024
What Would Trump 2.0 Mean For The Future Of NATO? – Oct 29, 2024
Ukraine-Russia: Stalemate Ensues, Concerns Multiply – Jan 27, 2024
Ukraine Conflict And Global Balance Of Power Tussles In Europe – Jan 5, 2023
‘America First’ And Future Of Globalization – Nov 12, 2019
Understanding Trump’s America First Doctrine And Its Implications – Sep 17, 2017
Understanding The Change in America – How To Make America Great Again? – Mar 20, 2017
Deciphering Obama’s UN Speech; Non-State Actors, State Sovereignty, And Future Of UN – Sep 30, 2013

The post The End of Liberal Internationalism? Trump’s Foreign Policy Revolution and Its Electoral Implications appeared first on Politact.

Context

The election of Donald Trump in 2017, and unveiling of the ‘America First’ Doctrine, signified a marked departure from the political, economic, and security framework set in place in the aftermath of WWII. This vision championed by the US and premised on economic interdependence and free trade, also known as Globalization, was presented as the best hope for preventing wars and preserving peace. The institutions such as the UN, WTO, World Bank, and IMF have all facilitated and regulated the spread of Globalization and free trade – while NATO provided the security apparatus for the victors of WWII.

However, under the America First doctrine, free trade is shifting towards protectionism and nationalism – and the noble ideals such as promoting democracy and upholding human rights are taking the back seat. President Trump’s recent speech at the UN further elaborated on the contours of the doctrine that propagates the demise of Globalization.

This obviously is a gargantuan shift and is coming about in the absence of any ‘world war’ magnitude conflict. However, the Great Recession of 2008 is termed as the second worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Trump stated in his speech at the 74^th UN session:

“Globalization exerted a religious pull over past leaders, causing them to ignore their own national interests. Those days are over.”

He went on to add, “ Around the world our message is clear, America’s goal is lasting, America’s goal is harmony, and America’s goal is not to go with these endless wars, wars that never end.”

While on the political and economic front he declared:

“If you want freedom, hold on to your sovereignty, and if you want peace, love your nation. The future does not belong to Globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to strong, independent nations,”

Trump phenomenon is part of an anti-establishment wave that has popped up in various places around the globe, including Pakistan, in the form of Imran Khan. At one level, there is the question of what led to this, and will this drive sustain itself. And secondly, what does it mean for the rest of the world and the multilateral institutions that were set up to promote Globalization. PoliTact, will be examining these aspects in a series of articles.

What Led to America First?

Economic Sense of Exploitation

Perhaps the most important reason for this shift is the perceived sense of being exploited at the hands of emerging global powers that are getting ahead economically and technologically. And they are doing so by not being necessarily democratic or upholding human rights. In fact, a case can be made that in these times of chaos and polarization, democratic systems are reflecting mounting paralysis – whereas centralized and hierarchical systems are being able to better navigate the social turbulence.

Moreover, as the sources of Western economic wherewithal dwindle, they have started to challenge the very basis of their strength, such as multiculturalism and diversity. And again, historical precedence would suggest similar outcomes in such circumstances. When the going gets tough, immigrants and minorities are usually the first to be blamed for the predicament, and this also explains the rise of right wing elements in the US and Europe.

On the other hand, Europe that has acted as the bedrock of American global power projection is more and more looking unable or unwilling to play this role, as the seismic events in the form of Brexit play out. Additionally, the emerging powers of Russian and China are also acting as centrifugal forces when it comes to the future of Europe. This was also recently visible when US warned European allies not to adopt Chinese 5G next generation mobile networks due to security risks.

From the American perspective, it has gone out of its way and at the cost of tremendous resources for the preservation and sustenance of the present system. The US has often acted for the common good and the mutual benefit of its allies. When it comes to global crises, other powers seldom act in the absence of American leadership. Obviously, American allies have their own perspective on the evolving American role.

This sentiment has also crept over into the economic realm, and led to the quick dissolution of trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) that America had itself crafted with tremendous efforts, while questioning how North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is benefiting the US. At the core of this belief is a feeling that US is being unfairly treated within the very system it helped create, and that Paris agreement on climate change would have likely further strangulated American economic growth under the burden of strenuous regulations. Under America First, Trump prefers bilateral format as opposed to the complexities involved in multilateral deals.

And if this is the case, with its emerging policies under Trump, US is telling the world that they need the present system more than it does. Moreover, it can help in maintaining the present order – but the allies would have to take the lead and the responsibility wherever applicable, and to establish fairness.

While there is an element of truth to how other nations have exploited the US, but one cannot underestimate the role played by multinational corporations. These companies have benefited tremendously from globalization by outsourcing work to other nations to maximize their profits while the American job markets and industrial capabilities suffered. The argument that technology and robotics are to blame for this is only a part of the explanation. And even if it is due to these reasons, it should have been a cause for alarm. A large unemployed workforce is in itself cause for instability, ethnic tensions, and hike in crimes.

Surprisingly, even the political representatives have failed to take notice of this combustible mixture, while overlooking the interests of their constituents. In one way, they are not to blame because Globalization conflicts with the concept of nation-state, and often puts the citizen of their own country in a second place. Globalization works best when there are minimal hindrances in the way of cross border trade, and the free market dynamics are allowed to play out.

Modern Warfare and Endless Conflicts 

Since 9/11 US has found itself at the forefront of many theaters of the campaign against extremism. In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, the involvement includes the GCC, Libya, Syria, Horn of Africa, and the nations of Islamic Maghrib. While it has the support of Western and regional Muslim allies, however, most of the financial and security heavy lifting for this campaign has been undertaken by the US. Even NATO partners have been reluctant to increase their defense contributions to the organization. And this is despite the fact that American role brings security benefits for its regional and Western allies.

And because of this, resentment has gradually been building, which ultimately led to the election of Donald Trump and the mantra of ‘America First’.

The prolonged war against extremism has played a pivotal role towards this dilemma as well. While the wars of the past were direct inter-state conflicts, the emerging conflicts have so far avoided the conventional theater, and have relied more on non-state actor acting as proxies and on hybrid warfare. Irrespective, the economic drains of these modern formats are mostly invisible to the pubic but incrementally drain the treasury. These formats convey a false sense of stability and are good for market and public confidence in the short term. Moreover, the hybrid warfare configuration has played havoc with the state sovereignty concept.

Conclusion

Thus, because of the imbalance of global power, and due to the apparent unwillingness of the US to maintain the present order, we are entering a dangerous phase. The key challenge for the other state actors has now become how to manage and maintain tranquility? Additionally, how to preserve their interests and sovereignty as the present order crumbles, while the shape of emerging system remains unclear.

At the heart of the misalignment between the US and the allies is a concern that who benefits more. The combination of America First doctrine and American Exceptionalism, will likely produce dangerous consequences, confuse allies, and hasten new global and regional realignments.

If American First policy does not produce economic dividends for common Americans in the short and long term, it will further complicate its domestic politics and confusion regarding America’s global role and future direction, and this in turn will further weaken the present order. Moreover, the America First principle is likely to unnerve the multinational corporations and this can add to the challenges confronted by President Trump in altering the status quo.

One of the key challenges for the West, and the US, is that after an era of complete economic and military dominance, will it be able to adjust to the new global realities and multipolarity.

The post ‘America First’ And Future Of Globalization appeared first on Politact.

Arif Ansar

Context

Analysts and scholars from a variety of origins and backgrounds have described the present state of global affairs as going through a transition. The bilateral and multilateral ties during this interlude have remained anchored around the principles of globalization and laissez faire economic policies, which necessitate more economic cooperation.

However, the election of Donald Trump signifies the start of a new phase, which is a marked departure from the trajectory that was set forth since World War II, premised on economic interdependence as representing the best hope for safeguard humanity and preserving peace. Now, free trade is shifting towards protectionism – and the noble ideals such as promoting democracy and upholding human rights are taking the back seat. This was quite apparent in the recently laid out Trump’s Afghan policy and earlier during his visit to Saudi Arabia.

As this reversal takes shape, and contrary to what is popularly proclaimed, foreseeing the future is becoming more predictable. The history provides sufficient examples of how the commotion between the emerging and established powers usually plays out. This raises a related inquiry of why the US is seemingly ditching such high aspirations at this juncture?

A Sense of being Exploited

Whether stated or not, perhaps the most important reason is the perceived sense of being exploited by the emerging global powers that are getting ahead economically. And they are doing so by not being necessarily democratic or upholding human rights. In fact, a case can be made that in these times of chaos and polarization, democratic systems are reflecting mounting paralysis – whereas centralized and hierarchical systems are being able to better navigate the present turbulence.

Moreover, as the sources of Western economic wherewithal dwindle, they have started to challenge the very basis of their strength, such as multiculturalism and diversity. And again, historical precedence would suggest similar outcomes in such circumstances. When the going gets tough, immigrants and minorities are usually the first to be blamed for the predicament.

The prolonged war against extremism has played a pivotal role towards this dilemma. On the other hand, Europe that has acted as the bedrock of American global power projection is more and more looking unable or unwilling to play this role, as the seismic events in the form of Brexit play out. Additionally, the emerging powers of Russian and China are also acting as centrifugal forces when it comes to the future of Europe.

Thus, because of this imbalance of global power, and due to the apparent unwillingness of the US to maintain the present order, we are entering the most dangerous phase. The era of cooperation that marked the transition phase has now entered the confrontation stage. The key challenge for the other state actors has now become how to manage and maintain tranquility as the present order crumbles, while the shape of emerging system remains unclear.

On the other hand, one of the key challenges for the West, and the US, is that after an era of complete economic and military dominance, will they be able to adjust to the new global realities and multipolarity. Understanding the ‘America First’ principle is critical to grasping the emerging US posture.

Interpreting America First Doctrine

Since 9/11 US has found itself at the forefront of many theaters of the campaign against extremism. In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, its involvement includes the GCC, Libya, Syria, Horn of Africa, and nations of Islamic Maghrib. While it has the support of Western and regional Muslim allies, however, most of the financial and security heavy lifting for this campaign has been undertaken by the US. Even NATO partners have been reluctant to increase their defense contributions to the organization. And this is despite the fact that American role brings security benefits for its regional and Western allies.

And because of this line of reasoning, resentment has gradually been building, which ultimately led to the election of Donald Trump and the mantra of ‘America First’. The full contours of this principle have not yet been laid out, and thus it is hard to comprehend it fully within the US and abroad. International actors are nervously trying to gauge what it means for the international order and for them.

From the American perspective, it has gone out of its way and at the cost of tremendous resources for the preservation and sustenance of the present system. The US has often acted for the common good and the mutual benefit of its allies. When it comes to global crises, other powers seldom act in the absence of American leadership. Obviously, American allies have their own perspective on the evolving American role and the narrative laid out above.

This sentiment has also crept over into the economic realm, and led to the quick dissolution of trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) that America had itself crafted with tremendous efforts, while questioning how North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is benefiting the US. At the core of this belief is a feeling that US is being unfairly treated within the very system it helped create, and that Paris agreement on climate change will likely further strangulate American economic growth under the burden of strenuous regulations.

And if this is the case, with its emerging policies under Trump, US is telling the world that they need the present system more than it does. Moreover, it can help in maintaining the present order – but the allies would have to take the lead and the responsibility wherever applicable. This is not all, the US also seems to be saying that its interests supersede all others – and thus there is less and less room for diplomacy.

While there is an element of truth to how other nations have exploited the US, but one cannot underestimate the role played by American corporations. These companies have benefited tremendously from globalization by outsourcing work to other nations to maximize their profits while the American job markets and industrial capabilities suffered. The argument that technology and robotics are to blame for this is only a part of the explanation. And even if it is due to these reasons, it should have been a cause for alarm. A large unemployed workforce is in itself cause for instability, ethnic tensions, and hike in crimes.

Surprisingly, even the political representatives have failed to take notice of this combustible mixture, while overlooking the interests of their constituents. In one way, they are not to blame because globalization conflicts with the concept of nation-state, and often puts the citizen of their own country in second place. Globalization works best when there are minimal hindrances in the way of cross border trade, and the free market dynamics are allowed to play out.

America First and Allies

As this reversal takes shape, what will be the political, security and economic implications of the America First policy? In all practicality, America First mantra is likely to put it in confrontational mode with many of its allies, including other emerging powers. While President Trump has not repeated his earlier criticism of NATO, there is no hiding the fact that US wants NATO members to increase their defense spending if they in the long run want continued American security commitment. The America First policy was also at display in the unfolding North Korean crisis, where Trump criticized the trade dealings with South Korea at an ill-conceived time.

Moreover, the new sanctions imposed on Russia could also indirectly penalize EU, especially in the energy sector, and Germany and France have come out strongly against them.

There are five western firms that are partnering with Russia’s Gazprom to construct Nordstream 2 pipeline meant to carry gas from Russia to Germany. These include Germany’s Wintershall and Uniper, the Anglo-Dutch company Royal Dutch Shell, Austria’s OMV, and France’s Engie.

European Union President Jean-Claude Juncker was quoted as stating in July,

“If our concerns are not taken into account sufficiently, we stand ready to act appropriately within a matter of days. ‘America First’ cannot mean that Europe’s interests come last.”

In his South Asia policy President Trump also asked India to assist US in Afghanistan and payback for the benefits it derives from trade with the US.

America First approach is also accompanied by less and less emphasis on finding political solutions to international crises, whether it be in Afghanistan or the Middle East, or the emerging confrontation with North Korea.

The new doctrine thus require international actors, and even the allies, to prove how they are going to reciprocate the advantages received as a result of trade with, and security assurances provided by the US. As alluded to above, this message has already been conveyed to allies such as NATO, EU, South Korea, Pakistan, and India. Some nations, such as Saudi Arabia, have quickly jumped on the bandwagon by signing huge defense deals with the US.

At the heart of this misalignment between the US and the allies is a concern that who benefits more. In any relationship when matters sink to this level, it’s an indication that all is not well. In absence of partners, the combination of America First doctrine and American Exceptionalism, will likely produce dangerous consequences and hasten new global and regional realignments.

If American First policy does not produce economic dividends for common Americans in the short and long term, it will further complicate its domestic politics and confusion regarding its global role and future direction, and this in turn will further aggravate the present order.

The post Understanding Trump’s America First Doctrine And Its Implications appeared first on Politact.