As the United States of America has to become acquainted once again with recently re-elected President Donald Trump, so does the rest of the world. It appears there is more tension following the clarification of his international policies than there is peace. The international community – alliances, the balance of power, and priorities – shifts every day, and it is interesting to assess the way the world is responding to American international policies. In a matter of weeks, America has imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico, the closest countries in geographical proximity, and has firmly sided with Russia. 

On January 20th, 2025, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States. After a victory against Former Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump will serve as president for a second term, being the second president to serve two non-consecutive terms after Grover Cleveland. With a new – or rather, recycled – administration, certain policies will be altered to reflect the values of his campaign and his party. As the newly inaugurated president, Trump has wasted no time in establishing what will be America’s new international policy. The president, in a variety of ways, has either taken actions or signaled his intent/willingness 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 or 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 (W.H.O.)

• Redesignate Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism 

These actions are likely to be followed by many more, calling into question: what is America’s new foreign policy? And furthermore, what will this mean for its citizens? These actions can be interpreted as transitioning from a state encouraging globalization and international trade to one that is more isolationist. Therefore, it is crucial to wonder how this will affect the nation, as well as others.  

While one cannot necessarily foresee how these policies will play out, one can consider the trajectory. The U.S. is a nation that has successfully utilized its soft and hard power to be the guiding force of the international system. They provide aid, promote democracy, and above all, act as the leading nation of the free world; whatever policies they decide to take on will undoubtedly affect the rest of the world. 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 America’s relationship with other nations.  

When it comes to wanting to increase self-sufficiency, the following policies are considered: an increase in tariffs on other nations, whether friend, foe, ally, or adversary, as well as a withdrawal from multilateral organizations such as the W.H.O., N.A.T.O., etc. There must be benefits to this; it must have been done for a reason. These reasons 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 should protect American manufacturing and reduce trade deficits, which should turn companies in favor of producing through domestic supply chains. Similarly, withdrawing from multilateral organizations should allow the U.S. to avoid obligations that may be seen as restricting American sovereignty and allow the nation to act in its own interests. This should be beneficial.  

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 higher costs for products. According to C.B.S. News, “American consumers would likely bear the brunt of the cost.” Additionally, countries may retaliate. In fact, Canada already has. B.B.C. News reported the 25% retaliatory tariffs, indicating a potential trade war between the U.S. and other nations. 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. The potential good that could come from this 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. However, the potential negatives could outweigh these. There is a risk of heightening tensions and alienating 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 or military conflicts. It could undermine global stability and reduce America’s influence internationally.  

The policies of the new Trump administration were campaigned to “put America first,” but by the looks of it, they might put America and its citizens in a worse position. From having an increase in prices from groceries to oil, to isolation from an interdependent international community, the risks of these policies run far and wide. As a nation, and as leaders, it is normal to crave and to campaign for the best for us, yet an imbalance in policies could negatively affect the citizens of the United States. The key here is moderation. Prioritizing citizens is incredible – it is what 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 of America has shaped and continues to shape international relations. The Trump administration is attempting to redefine it once more. 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 and economically powerful, and stronger? Or will we be left worse off? As the U.S. takes on a different position – a more assertive, and in worst case, aggressive, position – one can only wait and see what the international landscape will become.