The backdrop of the verbal skirmish – in violation of every rule of diplomacy and decency – in the White House between Trump (with his Vice President J.D. Vance assisting) and Zelensky, despite the grotesqueness of the spectacle, cannot cover up the emerging “Trumpian” vision of American foreign policy. Which – as we have said – is based on historical American isolationism (as the Monroe Doctrine) – but is also enriched by a series of specific characteristics that make it difficult to access from a previous analysis of international relations. But what are these characteristics?
Everything from the beginning and now
In the international arena, Trump’s basic belief is that what the previous American administration, Biden’s, did, but also more generally that it has the stamp of the Democratic party, and even more, that it has been “worn out” by what he calls “the US’s subservience to the multipolar field of unacceptable globalization”, that it has been “infected by the woke virus”, anything that does not support that the US is no longer “leading, but dominating”, is not only wrong, but also destructive. Therefore, it must be overturned as quickly as possible and even in the opposite direction.
And the main theme here is that the US must distance itself from any field that either exposes it to “useless risk”, mainly its hegemonic role internationally to date, as well as anything that burdens it with obligations that “do not belong to us”.
So, at the foreign policy level, Trump’s policy focuses mainly on how previous governments operated in relation to NATO, China, Russia, Taiwan, obviously the “problematic” Ukraine, specific countries in the Middle East and the Pacific, as well as with the neighboring countries of the US, Canada, Mexico and Central America, stating that “all these relationships and actions were to weaken us, so they are changing”. While Europe in particular is characterized as a semi-different space of American interests, which must regroup and take charge of its own destinies, but never in competition with Washington (so the US indirectly dictates the transformation of the Atlantic alliance into a post-transactional one).
Here, then, Monroe’s isolationism, which at its core had the logic of understanding, that the US asks for “non-intervention in its neighborhood” and promises accordingly “non-intervention in other places”, becomes sharper in a modern version. As Trump declares that he is now anxiously pursuing such a grandiose and radical policy for the good of his country, that it distances it from every previous historical commitment, while requiring the “universe to align with us now”.
In other words, Trump sees and understands himself as a “great disruptor” and 2025 as “time zero,” where he will begin to redefine every area of American influence, transaction, and participation.
Make America Great Again
A fundamental element of Trump’s foreign policy is that it states that it “puts the US first” and therefore every international action will be controlled based on the benefit it will provide, in the MAGA vision, Make America Great Again. The latter sounds paradoxical, since by definition the foreign policy of each country is structured to serve national interests, so what is the new emphasis for? The Trump version, however, requires that this benefit – more of isolation and not so much of isolation from the international scene – be tangible, immediately “realizable” and obvious, with its maximization as much as possible.
Thus, the new US foreign policy is self-limiting as it does not allow for a long-term strategy – because this will only pay off vaguely later and not now – nor for side strategies of goodwill accumulation and soft power that are considered secondary and wasteful, nor for participation in allied/multinational coalitions because these also involve other/foreign interests.
While obviously every previous agreement, commitment and treaty is rejected, if it cannot be proven on the spot that the US benefits from it. Thus, the historical strategy of the US to project itself as a global unifying force of “Good” by calling everyone into an alliance of principles with them (of course with the massive hypocrisy that this contained), is now being transformed. With the aim of now maintaining the US as “a very powerful power, heavily fortified and armored against any threat, whose only commitment is its own narrow interest”.
This vision, of course, overturns the fundamental of the “continuity of international relations”, that is, when a country negotiates/relates with another, this is done institutionally. Otherwise, if each state declares that “I participate in the international field, but every 4 years I will change everything because I changed government” it is manipulating itself, as no one can trust it and build with it some relationship of friendship, alliance, even balance. This does not invalidate the right to change course, but in international relations what is usual and necessary is gradual and long-term change and not conflictual revision.
Politics of personal confrontation
We also cannot ignore that the new US president has already formed a largely rigid perception of many foreign countries and their leaders since his first term.
Here we see not only the dominance of his narcissism, which projects itself – and indeed believes it – that he is the “great negotiator” who “subdues other powerful people to his will”, but also a general perversion of international relations, which are transformed into a battle of wills and personal opinions, losing the historical background, social dynamics and cultural differentiation.
It goes without saying that we are overlooking the complexities of international reality, which is now interpreted superficially, with personal stereotypes and simplistic descriptions. For example, “the European Union was created to destroy us”, “Canada is our subordinate and non-existent as a country”, “Mexico is a country of cartels”, “China is the enemy”, “Israel can do as it wants”, “Iran must be subdued”, “I trust Putin”, “Erdogan is my friend” and so on.
The likely outcome here? That US foreign policy will be trapped in recording “Trump’s personal victories” in the international arena, however these are interpreted. For example, The in-camera vilification of Zelensky, already described and praised by the Trumpian public in the US as “finally someone put the little man from Kiev who doesn’t even wear a suit in his place” and that “we need such solid leaders”. In other words, without seeing either the ridiculousness of the confrontation or its impasse, since Zelensky had already given in to signing the extortionate agreement on minerals, so the benefit for the US (if there ever was one) had been achieved.
But perhaps what Trump clearly said in his free-speech was needed: “We made good television today”, that is, a personal humiliation show. Regardless of whether this concerns and distances dozens of other countries from American influence, something that will be seen in several years how serious it is.
“The USA is me”
Another element of the new perception is the deep suspicion of Trump and his entourage towards the State Department, its staff and the tradition of the American diplomatic corps. Thus it is described as “controlled by the Democrats”, “too independent”, “without faith in the new President” and above all “as an obstacle to the implementation of a dynamic international relations policy”.
In fact, on February 12 of this year, Trump issued a presidential decree entitled “A Voice for American International Relations,” which not only… reminds that the formulation of US foreign policy is the constitutional responsibility of the president (this is correct), but also obliges Secretary of State Marco Rubio (clearly embarrassed…) to check all the ministry’s staff to see if they “faithfully enforce this policy,” otherwise “they will face disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.”
The decree, novel in its wording, essentially tells the US diplomatic corps and the entire civil service structure that the main criterion for their recruitment, their performance and their development, as well as their stay, is how many “are loyal to Trump,” without of course any measure or criterion to substantiate this!
The result of this Trumpian action is that it essentially prohibits the US State Department from pointing out potential problems in its foreign policy, from providing data and analysis, and generally from expressing opinions and actions that could be considered “anti-presidential.” Thus, the experience of American diplomats and their on-the-ground understanding of dozens of critical countries and organizations is being strangled, as it could mean the end of their careers.
There is no clear answer to the obvious question of who now advises Trump on international relations. The assumption is, as in many other areas of his policy, that he relies on a closed circle of personal friends, advisors and contacts, as well as on his own perception. Thus, US foreign policy is now sought to be determined in a narrow field, by a few, who may not even have the necessary knowledge, let alone the calmness of analysis, while they are already vibrating with obsessive monomanias.
Here we have a reprise of L’État, c’est moi (the state is me), of the “Sun King”, Louis XIV, which is not limited to the country’s international relations. Already, Trump’s inner circle, starting with his vice president Vance, is publicly formulating the following theory: That presidential power cannot be questioned by anyone, is not limited by anyone and is not subject to any law! With direct accusations, for example, of federal judges who dare to suspend the implementation of some presidential decrees, until they examine their constitutionality, that they are “traitors and must be referred to Congress to be prosecuted”.
With the certainty – and here a central element of Trump’s political analysis – that behind “everything” in the US lies the legendary Deep State, that is, a backstage complex of entrenched power interests, which controls and deals with the elected administration at any given time. So here, Trump, as a “knight in shining armor” comes to “clean up the swamp of Washington” (a phrase he has been using for a decade) and to restore direct contact between the president and society.
The existence of entrenched interests is of course a given in the US, but here Trump does not bring anything new. As he already brings with him a new version of his own “deep state”, mainly a dragon of oligarchs of digital power, to replace the old one. Only he does not recognize this, attributing to his own actions the forgiveness of all sin, in an almost theological self-justification.
International relations for domestic consumption
A peculiarity of America – timeless – was that a large part of the country’s citizens were not interested in its international policy despite its influence, with the exception of 3-4 major issues. Thus, what the US was doing in Africa, Asia, Oceania, was almost unknown, as was the country’s action in many international organizations. In the Trump era, however, every action of the president must be announced and noted as a “personal success”, so the “international” again comes to the national spotlight, with emphasis of course on what we have already mentioned, that it “offers benefit/prestige to the country”.
Thus, the following risk emerges here: In the need to present victories, Trump will be satisfied with minimal agreements, often diplomatic maneuvers of his interlocutors. Who are already competing these days in flattery, personal appeals for rescue or even investment announcements within the US (at a later date), in order to appease the already fickle new president. And all of this is served up as trophies to the domestic (and international) public through a powerful mechanism of (mis)information. From friendly new media and social media, the latter controlled by the digi-oligarchs already allied with Trump.
Hostility towards Ukraine
On a more specific level, that of Ukraine, Trump also has a long history. As his own “cooperation” with the Ukrainian government and especially Zelensky, is stigmatized by the attempt many years ago to find evidence of scandals surrounding the actions of Biden’s son, Hunter (a sad figure), who worked in a Ukrainian investment fund. Thus, since 2019, Trump’s team has been strongly promoting the theory of the “Biden father scandal”, that is, that he himself intervened in Ukraine to protect his son from prosecution there (albeit unlikely but difficult to prove). In fact, a phone call on July 25, 2019 from Trump to Zelensky (who had just taken office as president of Ukraine) has become historic, with the former demanding that investigations be launched against the Biden father and son! And as a lever of pressure, Trump had used the freeze on the transfer of defense aid to Kiev.
This resulted in his impeachment by the US House of Representatives at the end of 2019 (the House then had a Democratic majority) on charges of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”. Ultimately, this adventure of Trump’s – which dominated the American political scene in 2019-2020 – resulted in his acquittal by the Senate, with a Republican majority. Thus, Trump is not only personally opposed to Zelensky, but also generally believes that Ukraine “took away his ability to degrade Biden, and therefore win the election battle for the US presidency in 2020”.
This confrontation continued, with Zelensky’s truly misguided move, in September 2024, when he visited the US, a few weeks before the presidential elections there. Where the Ukrainian president toured a munitions factory in Pennsylvania, accompanied by local Democratic politicians. This state was one of the “critically contested” (swing states) for how it would vote in the upcoming elections, so Republicans were furious, believing that Zelensky was favoring their opponents. Thus, the Ukrainian president, before he even arrived at the White House the day before yesterday, was characterized as “a friend of the Democrats, unruly, a personal enemy of Trump, a dictator” and whatever else Russian propaganda offered (fairly or unfairly).
The above came and matched the other structural perceptions of the Trump camp: That the Ukrainian issue is “the Democrats’ responsibility, if we were in power the invasion would never have happened” (a mantra that Trump repeats, without of course being based on any logic), that the entanglement there should be taken over by “Europe, which exploits us”, that this confrontation prevents Trump from making a “grand agreement with Putin in order to subjugate him too”, so it must disappear – the local harassment – as soon as possible. Furthermore, Trump has called himself a “peacemaker” so the end of the war is paramount, by all means, even if it strengthens Moscow and undermines European security. And of course, with the remark that “peace in Ukraine is what will give us an investment opportunity with the legal plunder of the country”, so there is a financial benefit.
USA, within the world, but also in its own “world”
In the above description, the question arises: Can, even with this radical, short-sighted, introverted, transactional and imaginatively subversive of everything, US foreign policy, with a feeling of “divine mandate”, be recorded a profit for themselves? And then for the whole world? If of course it continues and we do not see its overthrow by a wave of discontent and reaction within the US, due to economic stagnation and social insecurity?
The answer to the first is “maybe yes”, as Trump’s isolation creates power vacuums, which can be filled with rapid submission to the “orange overlord”, in the absence of other options. Thus, and mainly in the European field, this new policy may attract a group of countries that will seek American favor, as its new “vassals”, as there is no rival to fear. With Europe facing up to a complete reversal of its post-war agreement with the US (structured for decades) and with Russia to its east, wounded by the 3-year war, but with its encouraging “reward” looming.
More generally, Trump’s drive for containment while preparing for a global trade war, but perhaps even a direct war with China – an unlikely contradiction of isolation on the one hand but constant engagement in confrontation on the other – also creates an opportunity for stability (or for great instability, both possible). Possibly with the rapid formation of new multinational agreements, which will seek not a conflict with Washington, but some “from afar” consensus, in order to restore an international balance, even for a few years. As few countries are willing to “release the brakes” on an aggressive power buildup, if this can be done more peacefully.
Of course, if the above happens, the US will emerge smaller and weaker than it is now, but this will be fully established “after Trump”. Here, we must also acknowledge the new US president as right. As he probably knows that the fantasy of Pax Americana has been fading for years. So in his isolationist/aggressive megalomania, Trump claims the smallest, currently feasible level of American power – even if in a vulgar way – and not the theoretical one.
And it was the most extroverted US presidencies that achieved this American degradation. The Bush Jr. era that started 2 wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously, only for the US to shamefully withdraw from both, years later. Obama’s decision to “pivot dynamically to the Pacific”, with China now almost 10 years later, increasing its power and closing the gap with the US. Or, even earlier, the Clinton policy (continued by Bush Jr.), to expand NATO eastward, responding to the security demand of the countries that had freed themselves from Soviet imposition, only now NATO is emerging as a “club” and not an efficient alliance.
In other words, Trump, although acting “anti-historically”, has a small chance of being historically vindicated. But also a great possibility of being recorded as a new Nero who will smugly describe on Twitter/X/Truth Social the destruction of Rome, as “such a beautiful fire, only I could offer you”.
