In the post-Cold War era, the United States enjoyed its long unipolar moment and sought to redefine its role in an evolving international system. Donald Trump’s reelection signifies the resurfacing of his “America First” foreign policy, characterized by a shift from multilateral engagement toward a more unilateral approach. Some argue that this marks the decline of American Exceptionalism.
However, Trump’s return also presents an opportunity to reexamine the U.S.’s global strategy within a multipolar world shaped by new alliances, conflicts, and economic rivalries.
Trump’s perception of the world
U.S. foreign policy is at a crossroads, balancing remnants of the old world order with the uncertainties of a new global framework. Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office is being carefully observed worldwide, with many viewing him as a neo-isolationist seeking to deconstruct the liberal order built after World War II. However, since Trump’s last presidency, the global arena has undergone significant change. Multiple conflicts and crises have emerged, complicating the implementation of his “America First” policy.
Trump’s recent proclamations regarding U.S. interests in Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal have sparked renewed controversy and concern about his geopolitical vision. While his remarks reflect a bold -albeit unlikely- ambition, his focus remains a transactional approach to alliances, viewing neighbors through the economic and security lens.
Portraying the “America First” policy as a negative deviation from the American experience overlooks historical precedents. Trump’s approach echoes aspects of the Monroe Doctrine (1789–1941), during which the U.S. advocated for “as little political connection as possible” with foreign nations. However, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 marked a decisive pivot as the U.S. embraced expansive internationalism, leading to the dissemination of Pax Americana that shaped the post-war liberal order Trump now seeks to refine.
After 9/11 and the war on terror, the U.S. pursued a chaotic foreign policy that disillusioned many Americans. This sentiment turned public opinion against military interventions abroad, bringing domestic challenges to the forefront. Thus, Trump’s policies align with the U.S. electorate’s demands—emphasizing ad hoc deals and prioritization of U.S. interests—rather than an intent to alienate the country from the world.
The expansionist agenda
While Trump’s interest in Greenland is not a new development, his ambitions to incorporate Canada have caught the neighboring nation by surprise. Canada is the United States’ largest trading partner and a key ally in maintaining North American security and economic stability. The two countries have cooperated closely for over six decades through NORAD, ensuring the continent’s defense, and through NATO.
Economically, Canada’s abundant natural resources align with Trump’s vision of achieving energy independence and securing critical supply chains amid intensifying global competition, particularly with China.
The foundation of Trump’s idea appears to stem from past tensions during his first presidency, particularly the renegotiation of NAFTA into the USMCA and disputes over Canadian dairy tariffs. His rhetoric, which strained diplomatic relations, underscores Canada’s resource wealth as vital for reshoring key industries. Trump also emphasizes Canada’s strategic importance in the Arctic, as the region offers new shipping lanes and heightened geopolitical competition with Russia and China.
Unilateralism over disengagement
A cornerstone of Trump’s foreign policy is his skepticism toward multilateral institutions like NATO. While critiques of isolationism are valid, it is evident that the U.S. cannot fully return to such a doctrine given high stakes and recent developments (e.g., instability in the Middle East). The security that the U.S. once enjoyed is no longer attainable, as isolationism was connected not only to geographic separation but also to a policy of non-entanglement. Trump’s isolationism reflects unilateralism rather than disengagement. He prioritizes U.S. economic and strategic interests, pursuing transactional diplomacy that avoids obligations to international organizations and alliances.
Trump’s unilateralism is evident in his approach to ongoing conflicts, such as the war in Ukraine. Therefore, he intends to end the war in Ukraine while questioning granting Ukraine membership in NATO. As the Alliance has committed to Ukraine’s membership since 2008 and has reassured its long-term support, Trump has been skeptical of the substantial U.S. military and financial aid provided to Ukraine. However, Trump’s strategy for ending the war focuses on negotiating a ceasefire at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty. His past rapport with Vladimir Putin may complicate perceptions of U.S. resolve in confronting Russian aggression.
Furthermore, Trump’s critique of U.S. aid to Ukraine reflects his broader skepticism of NATO. He frequently argues that European countries fail to meet the 2% GDP defense spending target set by NATO, leaving the U.S. to bear a disproportionate financial burden. This cost-benefit lens leads him to question not only U.S. military commitments in Ukraine but also the broader financial obligations to NATO. For this reason, he proposed each member state to commission 5% of their gross domestic product on defense emphasizing on the threat of the Middle East.
Strategic and economic confrontation with China
The pivot from European challenges to China reflects the broader scope of Trump’s “America First” doctrine, which seeks to redefine U.S. global priorities by addressing threats both in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. His second term is likely to intensify strategic and economic confrontation with China. This approach blends economic nationalism with unilateralism.
During his first presidency, Trump initiated a trade war with China, imposing tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods to address the trade deficit while accusing China of intellectual property theft and currency manipulation. Trump views China as the primary challenger to U.S. global dominance. Consequently, his policies will likely aim to decouple key economic ties while challenging Chinese activities in the South China Sea.
Refocusing on Latin America
Among Trump’s domestic priorities are immigration control, combating drug trafficking, and addressing Chinese influence in the region. This indicates that a second Trump presidency would thrust Latin America back into the spotlight of U.S. foreign policy. For instance, Mexico, a key trade partner, faces pressure to secure its border, constrain drug flows, and reduce ties with Chinese firms involved in infrastructure projects.
Trump’s hardline strategy includes supporting near-shoring to reduce dependence on Chinese imports, aiming to attract significant investment to the region, reshape supply chains, and foster economic growth. Aligning with right-wing leaders like Argentina’s Javier Milei and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele offers a potential bloc of partners to address regional challenges. In Panama, Trump’s policies may focus on leveraging the Panama Canal’s strategic importance to limit China’s growing influence in the region, ensuring that U.S. interests are prioritized in trade and infrastructure development.
However, overly aggressive tactics could alienate regional allies or push countries toward closer ties with China through alliances like BRICS, whose trade with Latin America has grown to nearly $500 billion annually.
U.S. interests in Greenland and European relations
Trump’s revived interest in purchasing Greenland, an autonomous region of Denmark, has sparked tensions with European allies. Denmark and other European nations view such proposals as an infringement on sovereignty and international norms. European leaders have dismissed the idea as unrealistic, highlighting the need for collaborative rather than unilateral approaches to Arctic issues.
Greenland’s strategic location and resources make it a critical area for U.S. interests, particularly in countering Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. However, pursuing such ambitions risks straining U.S.-European relations. NATO cohesion could be undermined if allies perceive U.S. actions as disregarding shared values and goals. Balancing Arctic ambitions with diplomatic sensitivity will be essential to maintaining strong transatlantic ties while addressing global challenges like climate change and security.
The complexity of the Middle East
Recent developments in the Middle East demand that the U.S. adapt its strategy. The ongoing war in Gaza, Israeli military presence in Syria, and the occupation of a buffer zone will shape Trump’s policy. He is likely to support Israeli actions while reaffirming the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security against regional threats, particularly from Iran.
However, this approach requires careful balancing to maintain relations with Arab states like Saudi Arabia, which has become more assertive in recent years. Similarly, Trump will need to address Turkey, which seeks to reset relations with Gulf states. By leveraging Turkey, the U.S. could counter Iranian influence and expand partnerships through deeper economic and defense ties. Trump’s approach must emphasize pragmatism, focusing on alliances that further U.S. interests while downplaying broader ideological commitments.
Conclusion
Trump’s return to the Oval Office underscores the evolving nature of U.S. foreign policy in a multipolar world. While his “America First” approach reflects domestic priorities, the U.S. remains a global superpower whose actions shape international stability. Isolationism, however, in its traditional form, is no longer viable as interconnected challenges demand U.S. entanglement—albeit on terms that prioritize national interests.
The U.S. must balance unilateralism with strategic collaboration to navigate these complexities, adapting to a global framework where influence is increasingly contested. Whether Trump’s policies are welcomed or criticized, they highlight the enduring tension between America’s historical ideals and the pragmatic realities of modern geopolitics.
*Angeliki Vrettou is International Relations analyst.