Americans voted in the United States presidential election on Tuesday, Nov. 5, with Donald Trump projected to be the President-elect while much of the world looked on in suspense.

Conflict, trade wars and market volatility, health crises and democratic backsliding impact not only the men, women and children in many nations but U.S. citizens as well. It is perhaps naive to overlook how a second Trump administration will impact global security.

The ‘America First’ approach to foreign policy, one with isolationism at its heart and a decrease in ally-building and outreach in favor of domestic policy and interests is not an invalid argument at the face. U.S. intervention in armed conflicts and wars historically has caused more problems than solutions for humanitarian aid and security (ie. the war and chaotic withdrawal of U.S. military troops from Afghanistan). The political ire of sending American military troops abroad is also complex, not to mention the defense budget for Fiscal Year 2025 which is, according to the Department of Defense, a high price tag of $849.8 billion.

Still, America does have a foothold in many international conflicts and the global economy. For example, National Public Radio reported that the U.S. has been a primary supporter of funding and military aid to Ukraine, $175 billion, since the invasion of the country by Russia in 2022. Harris, NPR wrote, had pledged to continue to support Ukraine if reelected out of respect for international law, recognizing sovereignty and preventing the country from following under Russia’s domain. Trump says he won’t approve of more aid and also has engaged in personal and political relationships with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Many Ukrainian soldiers on the frontline fighting, NPR wrote, shared fears about the election because in some ways U.S. military assistance and aid could be a matter of life and death for them. A realization of Trump’s threats to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would also upend the strongest Western alliance and dangerously destabilize international relations and security. 

While limited in scope due to the lack of space in one report, the following international relations assessments indicate the far-reaching implications of U.S. foreign policy and instability.

China, Taiwan, and North Korea

Losing an ally such as Taiwan would be a dramatic loss for the U.S. Indo-Pacific policy and the nation and many small island developing states (SIDS) would fall under China’s growing sphere of influence. It could also lock the U.S. out of any type of effective strategy in the region and damage U.S. credibility. According to reporting from The Hill, Trump’s rhetoric surrounding the largely bipartisan consensus of defending Taiwan in the event of an armed reunification of the island by the People’s Republic of China is “unusually harsh.”

In an interview with Bloomberg News this past July, Trump said that he thinks Taiwan should pay the U.S. for the defense of the country and refused to answer if he would aid Taiwan against China. Taiwanese government officials have responded that any type of Chinese invasion by 2027 is a legitimate fear and possibility and that they are already paying 2.5% of their economic output for defense (greater than many NATO allies).

“If Trump [were to] abandon Taiwan, I wonder how he can make America Great Again because he would lose the support, the credibility of the U.S., in the Asian Pacific,” Taiwanese Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister François Chihchung Wu said in an interview with the Hill. 

From an economic standpoint, heavy tariffs on and another trade war with China, the likes of which plagued Trump’s first presidency, would be extremely costly to Americans. Trump floated in an interview with Fox Business in August 2023 that he would impose “automatic tariffs” of 10 percent to 20 percent on every U.S. trading partner and 60 percent levies on goods from China. 

The Washington Post reported that the U.S. imported $1 trillion worth of goods used directly by consumers from China and the effects of Trump’s proposed policies, even if only partially implemented, would be widespread. Prices of groceries from abroad will increase in American supermarkets, U.S. manufacturers would face declines in orders from abroad as foreign nations “impose retaliatory tariffs” and China and Europe would buy fewer Treasury bonds which in turn would increase the U.S. government debt and raise mortgage rates long term.

Another policy flashpoint in Asia, The South China Morning Post reported, is North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s ongoing hostility toward South Korea and recent military alliance with Russia. Currently, the U.S. has treaties with Japan and the Philippines, two strategic allies who are “particularly vulnerable” to the election outcome because of their geographic and political positioning. Reuters wrote that a Trump win is a unique opportunity for North Korea to reopen nuclear talks with the U.S. and resume diplomatic relations between Pyongyang and Washington.

Trump did lead an unprecedented engagement with North Korea during his time as president, and Ri Il Gyu, the highest-ranking former North Korean diplomat to defect, told Reuters in an interview that North Korea is “mapping out” next steps in the event of a second Trump presidency. This includes plans of talks for “lifting of sanctions on its weapons programs, removing its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism and eliciting economic aid.”

Sudan War and Health Initiatives in Africa

Sudan’s civil war has been ongoing since April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo. According to data from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 500,000 people have been displaced and more than 22 million people are at a catastrophic level of food insecurity or starvation. 

Al Jazeera reported that many political analysts say a second Trump administration would not take any action, diplomatically or financially, to help end the war. Al Jazeera also noted that political analysts say a misstep by Trump was prioritizing normalizing Sudan-Israel relations instead of efforts to support a “civilian-led government” and international humanitarian aid efforts.

During his first time in office, Trump led an initiative to create the “Prosper Africa” agency, which Voice of America (VOA) reported did support U.S. companies doing business on the continent. However, VOA also wrote that he simultaneously used offensive terms to refer to people from Africa and on Oct. 23, 2024, compared himself to South African activist Nelson Mandela, frustrating many people who disagreed with his assessment.

One long-standing, bipartisan global health initiative of the U.S. has been to combat HIV and AIDS. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was passed 21 years ago with the express purpose of providing support to developing nations to do so. Politico reported that many Republican congressional lawmakers withdrew support of sending funds to international groups that support access to abortion, and only granted funding to PEPFAR for one year (the standard since 2003, has been five years) during Joe Biden’s presidency. Politico wrote that many public health experts warn that Trump would most likely seek to hold or reduce funding to global health U.N. agencies and campaigns – the U.S. contributes $12 billion annually – such as the ‘Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.’ 

VOA reported that foreign policy experts say a Trump administration would be unlikely to focus on any Africa policy, despite the need for future engagement, either. Ebenezer Obadare, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, told VOA in an interview that he is pessimistic about any level of meaningful engagement with African nations.

“Insofar as the United States is intent on competing with those powers in Africa, keeping its old alliances and building new ones,” Obadare said, “I don’t think one administration is likely to differ much from another, strictly in terms of their Africa policy.”