With Donald Trump back in the Oval Office, the world finds itself grappling with an era of brash proclamations and heightened geopolitical tensions, where each presidential decree oscillates between calculated strategy and theatrical spectacle.
The Trump administration’s second term is marked by its characteristic predisposition for controversy, issuing statements and executive orders that dominate headlines while leaving critical strategic questions unanswered.
Even before taking office, Trump had reignited debate over acquiring Greenland, calling it the “real estate deal of the century.” Despite Denmark’s unequivocal rejection of the proposal during his previous term, Trump framed the island as vital to the national security of US, emphasising its strategic position, vast untapped resources, and potential to counter Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic.
His inaugural address echoed this vision, proclaiming, “The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation – expanding our wealth, our territory, and our horizons.” This rhetoric was accompanied by provocative remarks suggesting the likelihood of military intervention in Greenland, prompting fierce backlash from Danish and Greenlandic leaders, who reaffirmed the island’s right to self-determination.
Trump’s agenda already drawing protests
Trump’s agenda has also sparked international concerns beyond the Arctic. His renewed aspirations to reclaim Panama, framed as a strategic imperative, have already drawn formal protests from Panama’s government, which has sought UN intervention to safeguard its sovereignty. His executive orders to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Paris Agreement were not unexpected but carried significant international repercussions, sending a troubling message that the rules-based order holds little significance for the new administration.
Domestically, Trump’s executive orders targeting immigration have cast uncertainty over millions of lives, deepening divisions and stoking fears about the future under his leadership. Together, these immediate actions indicate a presidency that thrives on disruption, setting the stage for a turbulent and unpredictable chapter in global politics.
Trump’s statements and executive orders appear to serve multiple purposes. Domestically, they cater to his political base by emphasising a vision of expanding U.S. influence and dominance. Internationally, however, they generate scepticism and concern, shifting attention away from pressing global challenges such as climate change, rising geopolitical tensions, and international economic stability.
His rhetoric raises questions about whether these remarks are genuine or worthwhile policy propositions or merely tactics to project strength and distract from more complex, unresolved issues.
Trump’s statements reflect a predisposition to prioritise high-profile narratives over addressing systemic global problems. For instance, in the context of ongoing tensions in the Middle East and Ukraine, these comments could signal a lack of immediate focus on mature diplomacy or strategic partnerships. Critics argue that his dramatic declarations could overshadow substantive discussions on critical issues such as human rights, conflict resolution, and global economic reform.
Moreover, such rhetoric risks alienating key allies. Remarks about Greenland, for instance, have previously strained relations with Denmark, a critical NATO ally. Similarly, the suggestion of integrating Canada into the U.S. risks creating friction with a neighbouring partner already impacted by contentious trade disputes under Trump’s earlier tenure.
A foreign policy approach heavily reliant on rhetoric
While such statements may reflect a calculated strategy to maintain political momentum and project an image of decisive leadership, they also highlight the risks of a foreign policy approach heavily reliant on rhetoric. The focus on bold claims often undermines opportunities to build meaningful, long-term strategies for addressing global challenges, such as mitigating economic inequalities, fostering international cooperation, and combating the ongoing climate crisis.
This approach could perpetuate a pattern observed in Trump’s earlier administration: prioritising domestic political gains and personal branding over coherent and consistent foreign policy frameworks. As Trump re-enters the global arena, the international community will watch closely to see if his administration can move beyond rhetoric to address the critical, interconnected issues shaping today’s world.
Also Read: Trump’s ‘America First’ Policy Threatens the Liberal International Order
Trump’s assertions of success in brokering the recent Gaza peace deal have already invited scepticism from multiple quarters. While he might have played a role in facilitating negotiations, framing the outcome as solely his achievement seemed overstated. The Gaza ceasefire was a culmination of various factors, including belated efforts by the Biden administration and the contributions of regional actors such as Egypt, Qatar, and Jordan. These players have been active mediators in the region for years, creating the groundwork for a temporary cessation of hostilities.
Critics highlight that Trump’s involvement appears opportunistic and largely performative. His envoy’s intervention came late in the process, raising questions about whether the administration’s role was substantive or merely symbolic. Moreover, Trump’s past policies, such as his resolute support for Israel – including the contentious relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem – have historically contributed to heightened tensions in the region. Such actions undermine the credibility of his claims as a peacemaker.
Trump’s handling of the Gaza ceasefire highlights a broader pattern in his foreign policy: a tendency to act reactively rather than proactively. During his previous term, significant diplomatic moves, such as the Abraham Accords, were celebrated as landmark achievements. However, they were often executed without fully addressing the underlying conflicts, such as the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, leaving unresolved issues that continue to destabilise the region.
The timing of Trump’s Gaza intervention further strengthened doubts about his strategic foresight. Critics argued that his administration’s focus on the deal coincided with his bid to rebuild credibility on the global stage, rather than emerging from a genuine commitment to long-term peace in the Middle East.
This reactive posture contrasted with Biden’s earlier efforts to engage regional partners and establish humanitarian channels during the conflict.
Need to engage constructively with stakeholders
Trump’s claims must also be viewed against the backdrop of recent developments in the region. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza remains dire, with international agencies calling for sustained aid and rebuilding efforts. Meanwhile, tensions between Israel and Hamas continue to simmer, threatening to undo the fragile peace. Regional leaders, including Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Qatari officials, are advocating for broader negotiations to address the root causes of the conflict, such as territorial disputes, blockades, and the status of Jerusalem.
If Trump’s administration intends to build on the ceasefire, it will need to engage constructively with these stakeholders, moving beyond rhetoric to address the structural issues that perpetuate violence. This includes supporting multilateral frameworks for peace and ensuring equitable solutions for both Israeli and Palestinian communities. However, his track record suggests that the focus is more likely to remain on high-profile declarations and transactional diplomacy, rather than comprehensive conflict resolution.
Middle East: Business-driven politics and support for Israel
Trump’s return to power has elicited a spectrum of reactions across the Middle East. His unyielding support for Israel, captured by the controversial decision to relocate the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, remains a defining feature of his Middle East policy.
While this move cemented Trump’s standing among Israel’s leadership and right-wing factions, it alienated Palestinians and many Arab nations, who saw it as a setback to the peace process. Despite this polarisation, some Arab states view Trump’s transactional approach as an opportunity to advance their interests through pragmatic agreements.
His administration might consider setbacks for Iran as significant achievements. These include Iran’s reduced influence over Hezbollah and leadership changes in Syria. Trump’s sanctions and pressure campaigns against Iran during his previous term weakened its economy and geopolitical clout, though they failed to completely halt Tehran’s regional ambitions. However, such victories are often framed as transactional successes rather than the result of a coherent long-term strategy.
The Abraham Accords, one of Trump’s most celebrated achievements, normalised relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. This initiative not only transformed regional dynamics but also reinforced Trump’s belief in treating Middle Eastern politics as a platform for deal-making. His recent statements emphasise the potential for expanding these accords to include other nations, including Saudi Arabia, which could further reshape the geopolitical landscape.
Trump’s focus on the Abraham Accords aligns with his broader philosophy of politics as business. This approach seems compatible with several Arab states that prioritise economic partnerships and security arrangements over ideological alignment.
For instance, Gulf states have leveraged the accords to strengthen their economies and deepen ties with Israel in areas such as technology, trade, and defense. Trump’s return is likely to see a continuation of this trend, with his administration seeking to broker similar agreements to consolidate U.S. influence in the region.
Transactional, not transformative: Challenges ahead
Despite these successes, expectations for profound policy changes under Trump’s administration remain low. His foreign policy approach in the Middle East appears focused on achieving immediate gains rather than addressing underlying issues. Key challenges, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, remain unresolved, with Trump’s policies often favouring Israel at the expense of a balanced solution. His administration’s tendency to prioritise economic and strategic deals over ideological or humanitarian concerns risks perpetuating the region’s instability.
Recent developments also highlight the limits of transactional diplomacy. The fragile peace established through the Abraham Accords has not resolved deeper tensions, such as Iran’s regional influence, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, or the long-standing disputes over Jerusalem and Palestinian statehood. Trump’s reliance on deal-making may further entrench divisions, particularly if his administration fails to engage with all stakeholders in the region in a positive frame.
Arab states appear cautiously optimistic about Trump’s return, seeing opportunities for renewed deals that align with their economic and security interests. However, this optimism is tempered by concerns over his administration’s unpredictability and its potential to exacerbate regional rivalries.
Iran, facing ongoing sanctions and isolation, is likely to test Trump’s resolve, while Gulf states may seek to leverage his focus on transactional politics to secure favourable terms in future agreements.
Ukraine and Russia: Economic pragmatism over ideological stances
Trump’s stance on the Ukraine war is likely to reflect his pragmatic approach to foreign policy. While his rhetoric has often been sympathetic to Vladimir Putin, as president, he would face mounting pressure to reduce the economic strain of prolonged U.S. involvement in the conflict. Trump may pursue a strategy aimed at pressuring Russia to end the war, leveraging economic and diplomatic tools to achieve this goal.
His primary motivation would likely be reducing the financial burden on the U.S. and redirecting resources to domestic priorities, rather than ideological alignment or solidarity with Ukraine.
Significantly, in his inaugural address, US President Donald Trump was conspicuously silent on the war in Ukraine. However, just hours later, he broke that silence in his signature offhand, meandering style, offering unexpectedly firm remarks on the conflict.
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump took aim at Russian President Vladimir Putin, stating, “He should make a deal. I think he’s destroying Russia by not making a deal.” His comments marked a strikingly candid critique, zeroing in on the economic toll the war has inflicted on Russia. “I think Russia is going to be in big trouble. Look at their economy; look at their inflation,” he noted, referencing rising prices nearing 10%. Reflecting on his past relationship with Putin, Trump added, “I got along with him great. I would hope he wants to make a deal.”
China, India, and BRICS+: Economic Protectionism and Challenges
In dealing with China and India, Trump’s return to power signals a continuation, if not an escalation, of his trademark neo-protectionist policies. His earlier presidency was defined by aggressive tariff wars, particularly targeting China, as part of a broader strategy to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and promote domestic manufacturing. Recently, Trump reiterated his stance on protecting American industries, suggesting a likely resurgence of high tariffs on Chinese imports and stricter regulations on intellectual property and technology transfers.
This approach is expected to exacerbate existing tensions with China, which is already locked in a rivalry with the U.S. over economic and geopolitical dominance. Trump’s rhetoric against Beijing, labelling it a primary threat to American interests, reinforces his broader strategy of economic decoupling.
Measures such as restricting Chinese investments in U.S. tech firms or blacklisting key Chinese companies, as seen during his earlier term, are likely to reemerge. Such policies could further strain the fragile equilibrium in U.S.-China relations, with potential repercussions for global markets.
Also Read: Nine Years of Donald Trump’s Speeches Show His Rhetoric Has Only Grown More Violent
India, on the other hand, may face a mixed approach under Trump’s administration. While the U.S. views India as a critical counterbalance to China in the Indo-Pacific region, Trump’s emphasis on “America First” policies could lead to renewed trade disputes. His administration is likely to push for concessions on tariffs, agricultural exports, and market access for American goods. India’s cautious stance on these issues could strain the bilateral relationship, even as both nations seek to collaborate strategically against China’s growing influence.
Trump’s return is expected to pose significant challenges to BRICS+ nations, particularly as they pursue dedollarisation and seek to enhance financial independence. The grouping, which includes major economies like China, India, Brazil, and Russia, has been vocal about reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar in global trade. Recent discussions within BRICS+ about establishing alternative payment systems and trade mechanisms further indicate their ambition to challenge dollar dominance.
To counter these efforts, Trump is likely to adopt a multi-level strategy aimed at safeguarding the dollar’s supremacy in international trade. This could include punitive measures such as sanctions against nations adopting non-dollar trade practices, incentivising the use of the dollar through bilateral agreements, or increasing financial support for U.S.-aligned institutions like the IMF and World Bank to promote dollar-based transactions.
Trump’s administration may also leverage its influence in global financial institutions to undermine BRICS+ initiatives. For example, by blocking funding for projects that prioritise alternative currencies or pressuring U.S. allies to avoid participating in BRICS+ financial mechanisms, the administration could create significant obstacles for the group.
Such measures would reinforce the dollar’s central role in global finance but at the cost of further polarizing international economic relations.
Trump’s protectionist and unilateral approach could have far-reaching consequences for global trade. For China and BRICS+ nations, these policies may accelerate efforts to establish alternative financial architectures, deepening economic fragmentation. At the same time, U.S. allies like the EU and Japan may find themselves caught between preserving their economic ties with the U.S. and maintaining balanced relations with emerging powers.
India, given its strategic importance, may attempt to address this complex scenario by leveraging its role as a major player in BRICS+ while maintaining its partnership with the U.S. in the Indo-Pacific. However, balancing these relationships could become increasingly challenging if Trump is set to pursue aggressive economic policies that pressure India to align more closely with American interests.
The author is Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension (IUCSSRE), Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU), Kerala, India. He also served as Senior Professor of International Relations and Dean of Social Sciences at MGU.
