Trump’s Second Term: A Shift in Foreign Policy and a Reassessment of Global Priorities
The return of Donald Trump to the White House in 2024 marked a significant departure from traditional American foreign policy, a trend that has continued into 2026. Having campaigned on a platform of “no new wars,” a rejection of “regime change” interventions, and a prioritization of domestic concerns, Trump has instead pursued a foreign policy characterized by what some observers describe as “global buccaneering.”
This approach, while distinct from the overt nation-building efforts of previous administrations, has involved a series of interventions and pursuits that are often described as inconsistent and lacking a clear strategic framework. These include military actions targeting Islamic terrorists in Nigeria, limited engagements with the Houthis in Yemen, and a sustained effort to secure a comprehensive trade deal with China. Beyond these, the administration has actively sought to exert influence in countries as geographically diverse as Venezuela, the Gaza Strip, and even Greenland.
The shift is notable when contrasted with the foreign policy approaches of the preceding years. In 2024, after twelve years of policies focused on international cooperation and liberal internationalism, American voters chose a different path, opting for Trump’s “America First” vision. This decision, according to analysis, signaled a desire for a stronger, more assertive American role on the world stage, but one defined by a willingness to challenge established norms and prioritize national interests.
Critics argue that Trump’s approach, while avoiding large-scale deployments like those seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, is ultimately more damaging than the traditional practice of regime change. The logic behind regime change, they contend, at least involved an attempt to replace hostile governments with more favorable and democratic alternatives, weighing the potential benefits against the likely costs. Trump’s interventions, however, are often seen as improvisational and driven by transactional considerations rather than a coherent strategic vision.
The situation in Venezuela provides a case study. Both the Biden and Trump administrations recognized Edmundo González as the legitimate president, following the 2024 election allegedly stolen by Nicolás Maduro. However, Trump’s actions did not align with a clear strategy to support González and facilitate a transition to a democratically elected government.
This new direction in U.S. Foreign policy comes at a time of increasing global instability. The Council on Foreign Relations highlights the increasingly dangerous international landscape, particularly the rise of China as a formidable, authoritarian power seeking to displace the United States as the dominant force in Asia and, eventually, the world. The CFR emphasizes the need for a robust U.S. Grand strategy to address these challenges, one that prioritizes maintaining prosperity through technological innovation as a precondition for protecting national interests and the interests of allies.
However, the CFR report also outlines several competing schools of thought regarding American grand strategy. The “primacy” school advocates for maintaining unrivaled superpower status, while the “liberal internationalist” school favors a U.S.-led world order based on rules, democracy, and human rights. Trump’s approach appears to diverge from both of these established frameworks, prioritizing a more transactional and unilateral approach.
The implications of this shift are still unfolding. Recent analysis suggests that Trump’s foreign policy, while initially seen as disruptive, is delivering a degree of stability and security, a perspective articulated by Robert C. O’Brien, a former National Security Advisor. O’Brien argues that the “peace through strength” posture of the first Trump term is proving effective in deterring aggression and protecting American interests.
However, other observers question whether this approach is sustainable in the long term. Concerns remain about the potential for unintended consequences, the erosion of alliances, and the risk of escalating conflicts. A recent survey indicates that Trump may be pushing beyond what many Americans are comfortable with in terms of dismantling established international norms and relationships.
As the second Trump administration progresses, the world is watching to see whether this unconventional foreign policy will ultimately succeed in achieving its stated goals of protecting American interests and promoting global stability, or whether it will lead to a more chaotic and dangerous international environment.
