Trump re-election global effects/ U.S. foreign policy 2024/ NATO under Trump/ Trump and European allies/ self-reliant defense strategies/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ With Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, global allies and rivals alike are preparing for an American foreign policy that may be less supportive of traditional alliances. Trump’s approach, often critical of NATO and U.S. commitments to Ukraine and Taiwan, has spurred European and other allies to consider more independent defense strategies. The shift signals a new era of cautious self-reliance for U.S. partners worldwide.
“Trump’s Impact on U.S. Global Leadership Quick Looks”
- Less Reliable Ally: Trump’s win prompts European leaders like French President Macron to push for greater self-reliance in security.
- Allies Adjust Defense Plans: European nations, particularly France and Germany, are reconsidering their dependency on the U.S. in NATO.
- Focus on Transactional Relationships: Trump’s foreign policy emphasizes selective alliances, prioritizing economic and strategic interests.
- Concerns for Ukraine and Taiwan: Trump’s unpredictable stance on Ukraine and Taiwan leaves supporters wary of diminished U.S. backing.
- Shift in Global Dynamics: With less U.S. influence, Russia, China, and Iran are expanding their roles in regions like the Middle East.
Trump’s Second Term: Allies Brace for a Less Dependable U.S. Role
Deep Look
President-elect Donald Trump’s re-election is reshaping global expectations for U.S. foreign policy, especially among traditional allies who are increasingly seeking to reduce their reliance on American support. Trump’s previous term revealed his skepticism toward NATO, defense commitments to Ukraine and Taiwan, and his preference for a more selective approach to international alliances. With Trump returning to the White House, European leaders and other U.S. allies are bracing for a world in which American leadership may be less predictable and more focused on domestic interests.
Traditionally, U.S. presidents have at least acknowledged their role as leaders of the “free world.” However, Trump’s re-election marks a continued break from this stance. French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking at a European summit, underscored this shift, stating, “We must not delegate forever our security to America.” Macron’s remarks reflect a broader sentiment in Europe, where Trump’s past rhetoric against NATO and reluctance to commit to collective defense have fueled a movement toward regional self-reliance.
During Trump’s first term, he often questioned NATO’s purpose and criticized European allies for not spending enough on their own defense. While his administration stopped short of major troop withdrawals, his statements left European leaders questioning the reliability of U.S. security guarantees. Fiona Hill, a former Russia adviser to Trump, noted that under his leadership, America’s role could shift from being the “leader of the free world” to something more akin to a “leader of a free-for-all world,” driven by transactional alliances rather than long-term commitments.
Trump’s views on Ukraine have also raised concerns among NATO allies and other countries facing potential threats from Russia. While Trump did not scale back support for NATO during his first term, he frequently expressed reluctance about extending military support to Ukraine. Philip Breedlove, a former NATO commander, warned that Trump’s promise to “end the war in Ukraine right away” could lead to a resolution favorable to Russia, a move that might embolden Moscow and discourage European allies.
Across the globe, countries have started to adjust to the possibility of a more unpredictable U.S. foreign policy. Germany and France, for example, have already announced plans to strengthen regional defenses. Within hours of Trump’s victory, French and German defense officials scheduled discussions to reassess their military strategies and reduce dependency on the U.S. for regional security.
In Asia, allies are also preparing for shifts in American policy under Trump. Trump’s approach to Taiwan has been unpredictable; he has both criticized the cost of defending the island and suggested he could ease tensions with China through diplomacy. This stance worries Taiwan supporters who fear that U.S. support may waver. Paul Nadeau, a professor at Temple University’s Japan campus, noted that Trump’s reliance on unpredictability creates challenges for Taiwan, which depends on consistent signals in its delicate balancing act with China.
As the U.S. recalibrates its alliances under Trump, adversaries like Russia and China are moving to expand their influence. Both countries, along with Iran and North Korea, have been coordinating to challenge Western influence in areas from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. Trump’s inclination to pull back U.S. forces in regions like Syria and Iraq, which he signaled during his first term, left gaps that Russia and Iran have been quick to fill. Analysts say that Trump’s second term could see a continuation of these withdrawals, potentially leaving allies more vulnerable to regional adversaries.
One area that Trump’s foreign policy may directly address is the conflict involving Iran and Israel. Victoria Coates, who served as a security adviser to Trump during his first term, noted that Trump views Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a primary threat. Coates suggested that Trump could take an even more aggressive stance against Iran, beyond the sanctions strategy he pursued previously. The outcome of this approach remains uncertain, as escalating tensions with Iran could risk further destabilizing the Middle East.
On the domestic front, Trump’s foreign policy tends to resonate with a section of the American public that prefers focusing on domestic issues over costly foreign engagements. Coates argued that Trump is not isolationist but rather “judicious” about committing U.S. forces abroad, pointing to his selective support for conflicts involving Israel and his cautious stance toward extended military engagements.
The Trump administration’s handling of security arrangements has fostered debates within the U.S. and abroad about the future of alliances like NATO. Breedlove remarked that NATO nations have responded to Trump’s criticism by increasing their defense spending, with 23 NATO members now meeting the 2% GDP defense spending target, up from only 10 in 2020. Nonetheless, Trump’s rhetoric suggests he may still consider NATO an unnecessary burden if allies do not align closely with his foreign policy vision.
The cumulative effect of Trump’s approach has already prompted several U.S. allies to look inward for security solutions. Hill, the former Russia adviser, noted that many nations are factoring a reduced American role into their strategic plans. “There can’t be this dangerous dependency on what happens in Washington, D.C.,” Hill said. European countries and others worldwide are now exploring ways to secure their interests independently of U.S. policies, marking a potential shift in the balance of global power.
