Less than two months into his second presidency, President Trump has already set a bold and unpredictable course for U.S. foreign policy. From pausing military aid to Ukraine to escalating trade tensions with new tariffs, his administration is challenging long-standing alliances and reshaping America’s global role. While some argue these moves strengthen U.S. leverage, others warn they could weaken its standing and leave key partners uncertain about Washington’s commitments. On March 5, 2025, Wikistrat hosted a webinar with Dr. Richard Weitz to analyze the defining shifts in U.S. foreign policy under Trump 2.0
Dr. Richard Weitz is a senior fellow and director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at Hudson Institute. His research interests include European and Eurasian regional security developments as well as US foreign and defense policies. He has written extensively in his field, recently authoring his book, “The New China-Russia Alignment: Critical Challenges to US Security.”
Webinar Recording
Key Insights
The Absence of a Clear Foreign Policy Doctrine
There is no overarching “Trump Doctrine.” Instead, policies are shaped by economic goals, transactional diplomacy, and a preference for disruption over continuity. The administration has yet to issue detailed strategy documents, making its long-term vision unclear.
Additionally, many senior officials are new to their roles, which adds to the uncertainty in policymaking. While the National Security Council retains some continuity from the first Trump term, the broader reshuffling of personnel makes it difficult to predict future actions with confidence.
U.S.-Russia Relations: A Major Shift in Approach
The administration has reversed previous policies of isolating Russia and is now pursuing engagement, offering incentives such as sanctions relief and business opportunities in an attempt to weaken Moscow’s ties to China.
While Russia has signaled some willingness to engage in arms control talks, its deep strategic alignment with China makes a full-fledged U.S.-Russia rapprochement unlikely. If reconciliation efforts fail, relations may simply revert to previous tensions without major consequences for Moscow.
NATO Relations: Prioritizing Bilateral Engagements
The administration has adopted a dual approach to NATO, creating mixed signals:
On one hand, it demands increased defense spending from NATO members, pushing for a 5% GDP commitment.
On the other hand, it has challenged European sovereignty, particularly in areas such as Greenland, Germany’s internal politics, and defense policies.
Additionally, the U.S. appears to be prioritizing bilateral engagements over collective NATO frameworks, potentially weakening the alliance’s cohesion.
While there is no immediate risk of a U.S. withdrawal from NATO, the shift in approach indicates a growing push for Europe to take on greater security responsibilities.
Trade and Tariffs: Economic Priorities Over Alliances
The administration has prioritized domestic economic gains over maintaining strong trade alliances. It has imposed tariffs and trade restrictions to force industries back to the U.S., straining relations with key partners such as Canada, Mexico, and the European Union.
This approach is rooted in the belief that the U.S. has been economically disadvantaged by global trade structures. However, it risks further alienating allies who are already adjusting to shifts in U.S. foreign policy priorities.
China Policy: Strategic Ambiguity and Economic Pressure
The administration continues to implement economic restrictions on China, particularly in semiconductors, AI, and advanced manufacturing. However, unlike during President Trump's first term, there has been no clear military or ideological stance against Beijing.
Key developments include:
Continued economic restrictions but openness to future negotiations.
No clear commitment to Taiwan’s defense, reversing the previous administration’s explicit security guarantees.
Focus on bringing semiconductor production to the U.S., potentially weakening Taiwan’s "Silicon Shield" strategy.
This suggests that the administration is keeping its options open when it comes to China policy, balancing economic competition with the possibility of future engagement.
Middle East: Limited Action on Iran, Stronger Support for Israel
The administration has yet to implement a comprehensive Iran strategy. While it has increased sanctions enforcement, there have been no major diplomatic or military initiatives targeting Tehran.
However, its approach to Israel is significantly different from its Ukraine policy—it has fully aligned with Israeli leadership, providing strong diplomatic and military support without imposing conditions.
While Gaza negotiations remain a key focus, the U.S. has refrained from pressuring Israel into specific ceasefire terms, allowing Israeli leadership to determine military operations.
What’s Next?
Short-term focus: The administration will likely prioritize finalizing peace talks in Ukraine and Gaza negotiations.
Biggest unknowns: Future policies toward China and Iran, which will significantly shape U.S. global influence.
Long-term uncertainty: Given the administration’s flexibility and unpredictability, forecasting foreign policy shifts remains challenging.
Conclusion: A Transactional, Disruptive Foreign Policy
The U.S. foreign policy under this administration is transactional, flexible, and disruptive. It prioritizes economic gains, bilateral deals, and a reduced reliance on global institutions, leading to tensions with traditional allies.
However, significant policy gaps remain, particularly regarding China and Iran. Until clearer strategies emerge, U.S. foreign policy is likely to remain reactive and unpredictable, with major implications for global stability.
Comments