America’s New International Policy

On Monday, January 20th, 2025, Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States of America. After a victory against Former Vice President Kamala Harris, President Trump will serve as president for his second term, being the second president to serve two non-consecutive termsthe first being Grover Cleveland. With a newor rather, recycledadministration, certain policies will be altered to reflect the values of their campaign and their party. As the newly inaugurated president, Trump has wasted no time establishing what America’s new international policy will entail. The president, in a variety of ways, has either signaled his intent or has acted to: 

  • Withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (N.A.T.O.);
  • Impose tariffs on neighbors, friendly states, and other nations (Canada, Mexico, China);
  • Seize/take control of locations such as the Panama Canal or Greenland;
  • Reassert American sovereignty;
  • Designate the Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations;
  • Rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America;
  • Withdraw from various multilateral treaties and organizations such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization, and;
  • Re-designate Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism.

These actions set a precedent for increasing isolationism, calling into question: what is America’s new foreign policy? Further, what will this mean for its citizens? The Trump administration’s actions can be interpreted as a transition from a state encouraging globalization and international trade, to one that is more isolationistand it is crucial to wonder how this will affect the nation and the world.

While one cannot necessarily foresee how these policies will play out, one can consider the trajectory. The United States of America is a nation that has successfully utilized its soft and hard power to be the guiding force of the international system. It acts as the leading nation of the free world; whatever policies it decides to take on will undoubtedly affect global politics. To assess the possible, albeit unintended, consequences of what seems to be a new international policy, the plans of the Trump administration can be broken down into two overarching facets: an attempt to increase self-sufficiency and an attempt to reshape its relationship with other nations.  

Regarding the first facet, increasing self-sufficiency, the following policies are considered: an increase in tariffs on other nationswhether friend, foe, ally, or adversaryas well as a withdrawal from multilateral organizations such as the W.H.O. and N.A.T.O. These actions are rooted in the belief that reducing dependence on the aforementioned foreign entities will strengthen national security and bolster domestic industries: all in an attempt to prioritize Americans. Imposing tariffs will raise prices on foreign goods, which logically should incentivize American companies to produce through domestic supply chainstherefore protecting American manufacturing and reducing trade deficits. Similarly, withdrawing from multilateral organizations should allow the U.S. to avoid obligations that may be seen as restricting American sovereignty, and instead act in its own interests. In other words, tariffs should lead to positive outcomes for the country.

However, “should” is not definitive. While these policies might be intended to further American sovereignty and help American citizens, they might end up doing the opposite. Tariffs, such as the ones already imposed on China, Mexico, and Canada, are most likely going to result in generally higher costs for products. According to CBS News, “American consumers would likely bear the brunt of the cost.” Additionally, countries may retaliate. In fact, Canada already has: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently announced 25% retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports, indicating the beginning of a trade war between the U.S. and its northern neighbor. As for reducing American involvement in aid and organizations, the U.S. has long played a role in funding and supporting global institutions that address public health crises, humanitarian efforts, and peacekeeping missions. A withdrawal from these commitments could create a leadership vacuum, allowing other nations to expand their influence in international affairs. Additionally, cutting off funding to organizations like the W.H.O. might hinder global responses to pandemics and other health emergencies, potentially putting not only foreign nations but also American citizens at risk. 

The second facet is America’s attempt to reshape its global relationships. This extends from renaming or wanting to claim different parts of the world, to threatening other nations. A potential positive outcome for the United States from this policy is a signal to the world that America is assertively putting itself first. This stronger stance could lead to a more balanced share of global responsibilities. Regardless, the potential negatives could outweigh the positives. There is a substantial risk to this policy: it alienates long-standing allies and nations that are just beginning to foster good relations with the United States, such as Cuba. The more ‘aggressive’ posture can even lead to sanctions orworst-case scenariomilitary conflicts. It could undermine global stability and reduce America’s influence internationally.  

The policies of the new Trump administration campaigned to ‘put America first’, but by the looks of it, Trump’s international policies might put America and its citizens in a worse position. From price increases in essential goods such as groceries and oil to isolation from an interdependent international community, the risks of these policies run far and wide. As a national leader, it is normal to put your country’s interests first, yet an imbalance in policies could negatively affect your citizens.

The key here is moderation. Prioritizing citizens is a good thingit is what elected officials are elected to do. However, doing so in such a way that one disregards global partnerships, economic realities, and diplomatic relations will be detrimental. A balance needs to be struck between sovereignty and diplomacy, between integration and protectionism. Global interdependence is not a disadvantage; neither is it a hindrance to ‘America First.’ Prosperity and security for Americans will certainly not come from destabilizing global markets or escalating tensions. Selective engagement is better than a complete withdrawal, and strategic economic policies are better than punitive tariffs.  

Since World War II, the United States has played a primary role in shaping international relations. The Trump administration is attempting to assert this influence to redefine the global political landscape. Truly, it will be a test of time. The foreseen consequences may not seem optimal, but indeed the results could be. Will this make America more secure, economically powerful, and stronger? Or will we be left worse off? As the U.S. takes on a different positiona more assertive, and in worst case, aggressive, positionwe can only hold our breath to see what effect this approach will have on the international landscape.

Related

Leave a Reply