Erosion of Trust
February 17, 2025
India-China Rapprochement: Implications for U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy
February 19, 2025
Fawad Khan Afridi
The arrival of Donald Trump back to the White House in January 2024 marks the continuation of his “America First” agenda. With a clear mandate and control of both houses of Congress, Trump has immediately begun ushering in policies that are poised to rewrite America’s response to both domestic and foreign affairs. His second term includes a pledge to turn around the American economy while easing international obligations that he views as burdensome to the country’s interests.
Trump’s “America First” doctrine prioritizes economic protectionism, military strength, and reduced international obligations.
Trump intends to revive U.S. manufacturing. He has promised to restore industries after decades of outsourcing and to create jobs. Central to this, his protectionist policies, like corporate tax breaks for businesses that relocate production squarely in the U.S. 266 trillion of GDP.) He proposed cutting the corporate tax rate from 40 percent to 15 percent to attract investment to the US to make America a place that investors want to put money into. These tax entitlements are part of his larger plan to encourage production at home and fight the outsourcing trends that have dominated much of the world economy over the last two or three decades.
There are risks associated with these protectionist policies. The trade war with China that was a defining element of Trump’s first term has also crossed over into his second term, with tariffs on Chinese imports and retaliatory tariffs that make American exports more complicated. But this action helps U.S. industries, increases costs for consumers, and likely slows economic growth. What the Trump administration must now struggle with that how to pursue protection while maintaining the international trading partnerships that the United States economy depends on.
One of Trump’s most consequential policy moves in his second term has been his decision to cut America out of international agreements that he sees as detrimental to the country. Do you remember his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement? This defining decision from his first term didn’t change during his second. Trump sees the deal as a burden on American business, particularly the energy industry. By prioritizing domestic fossil fuel production, his administration has favored near-term economic growth over long-term global climate aspirations.
Likewise, Trump has continued his withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) because the organization’s connections to China have rendered it unable to respond effectively to global health crises. Although this isolates the United States from the international health community, Trump has argued that the United States’ resources should be dedicated to addressing domestic health priorities rather than bolstering international organizations he believes are ineffective. These decisions are part of a larger philosophy of disengagement from multilateral agreements, especially ones that might seem to disadvantage the United States. This perspective embodies his view that American sovereignty and the interests of the American people come before international obligations.
Trump’s administration also targeted the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), slashing the agency’s budget by approximately 20% in 2021. Trump’s position on foreign aid is straightforward: The U.S. should be spending its taxpayers’ dollars mostly at home. Though USAID has been a principal tool of U.S. foreign policy and humanitarian aid, Trump has turned to bilateral and transactional aid, engaging in foreign assistance on a pay-for-play basis with countries that can provide something of value in return to American interests, be that in trade agreements, defense treaties or geopolitical influence.
Trump’s more transactional approach to foreign aid has been in line with his broader strategy of downgrading America’s participation in global multilateral efforts. His administration views foreign assistance as leverage to be extracted from recipient countries, not a humanitarian act. The shift signals a departure from some of the more traditional, altruistic rationales for U.S. foreign aid.
Trump administration’s foreign aid policy shifts from humanitarian efforts to transactional diplomacy.
Trump’s doctrine of “Peace Through Strength” has been the cornerstone of his foreign policy. He has expressed a willingness to let others handle foreign conflicts and to reduce American involvement in war abroad, but he’s still hawkish in regard to military power. The U.S. will remain strongly positioned in regions where its interests are at stake, especially the Indo-Pacific and Eastern Europe.
Trump has prioritized renewing military spending and making sure the U.S. can’t be challenged as the dominant military force in the world. His administration continues to invest in new technology and nuclear capabilities. Still, the U.S. is shrinking its footprint in wars, such as in Afghanistan, and shifting its attention toward strategic deterrence at the expense of active conflict engagement.
Even so, Trump’s administration has been criticized for keeping military spending up while calling for a reduction of U.S. involvement in foreign wars. Critics say there’s no way the U.S. can afford to be both catatonic and heavily militarized in a multipolar world.
Trump’s foreign policy is a strategic, national interest-based approach. He sticks to the mantra foe any oncoming policies that exhibit only protection of American jobs, energy independence, and military dominance. His “America First” arguments reflect a belief that the United States can no longer afford to serve as the world’s police force or bear the costs of global leadership without concrete dividends.
Trump’s second term’s drift to unilateralism in U.S. foreign policy He has marginalized America’s place in international bodies and pacts, supporting a more isolationist approach. In many ways, this approach aims to liberate the U.S. from what Trump sees as global
the United States moves toward a more isolated position, it will risk losing its influence on the world stage. Trump’s policies could bolster rising global powers such as China and Russia, contributing to a possible decline in American global leadership in favor of a more multipolar world. Although America is still a superpower, Trump’s current methods might generate an opening in global affairs that enemies or rivals exploit.
His policies appealed to some segments of the American electorate, but they have also generated strong criticism. However, his emphasis on protectionism, unilateralism, and isolationism, critics say, weakens U.S. influence in international affairs and may alienate allies on which American leadership has been a foundation for stability and security.
U.S. global disengagement under Trump risks strengthening rivals like China and Russia, reshaping the world order.
The dilemma in Trump’s second term will be how to strike a balance between national self-interest and the need for international cooperation. Problems like climate change, pandemics, and terrorism are global and need multilateral solutions. This paves the way for Trump to retreat from these conversations, restricting the U.S.’s chances of addressing these issues innovatively.
Given America’s growing isolationism and the multipolar, interdependent new world order, there are questions about whether or not America can successfully reintegrate into this world, especially as the country backs away from international agreements. If Trump’s second term begins a new chapter in U.S. foreign policy, it is difficult to tell the long-term global repercussions or the future of America’s role in the world.
The author is an MPhil student at the National Defense University, Islamabad. His research interests encompass strategic contestation in the Asia-Pacific and regional security risks in South Asia. He focuses on geopolitical rivalries, economic nationalism, and emerging technologies within regions.
