By Kamran Nayeri, February 16, 2026
In this essay, I will discuss Donald
Trump’s foreign policy, with a focus on his second presidential term. There is
a growing body of literature on Trump’s second-term foreign policy. A question
of interest is whether Trump’s strategy and tactics are largely his own or a
response to the changing international structure.
Safavipour and Jalalirad (2025) argue
that Trump espouses a new “philosophy” aligned with his America First view: a
protectionist, anti-globalist stance favoring bilateral deals. Thus, he is
dismantling the multilateral post-World War II international arrangement.
Ghafarizadeh (2025) similarly argues
that Trump seeks “peace through strength” using tariffs and military might to
achieve his goal.
Nedeljković & Živojinović (2025)
analyze the strategic motivations behind Trump’s foreign policy in 2025 by
situating his decisions within broader grand strategy options (e.g.,
isolationism, selective engagement) and argue that his actions reflect consistent
strategic priorities shaped by both continuity and adaptation in the global
context.
Jasmin & Hosen (2025) provide a
systematic analysis of Trump’s “America First” approach, explaining his
motivations as rooted in a nationalist, selective-engagement logic that
challenges liberal internationalism and reshapes U.S. global commitments.
Smolinski et al. (2025) apply
negotiation theory to a set of expert analyses of Trump’s 2025 tariff campaign,
showing how motivations rooted in transactional leverage and hard-bargaining
logic shaped U.S. foreign economic policy.
The shortcoming of these approaches is
their failure to examine the historical record of Pax Americana (American
Peace) in the post-World War II period, which others have called the American
Century. This period was marked by the United States supplanting Britain as the
leading power in Western imperialism. By 2008, this period of U.S.
dominance over the global economy had given way to a rising multipolar world
order. I submit that the relative decline of the U.S., and with it Western,
explains the rise of the Make America Great Again movement, of which Trump is
the leading voice, and therefore, Trump’s foreign policy strategy and tactics.
We can already see the crisis within
the Western imperialist coalition. In the sixty-second European Security
Conference (February 13-15), President Emmanuel Macron of France said: “Europe
is rearming, but we must now go beyond.” He argued Europe must become a unified
economic and military power to become a unified major power: “Europe has to
become a geopolitical power.” (Landler, et.al., February 13, 2026).
Earlier, Chancellor Friedrich Merz of
Germany suggested that the Trump administration’s actions over the past year
meant that the United States’ claim to global leadership had been “challenged,
and possibly squandered.” (ibid.) He admitted that: “The international order
based on rights and rules is currently being destroyed…This order, as flawed as
it has been even in its heyday, no longer exists in that form.”
Like Macron, Merz advocated a
militarily strong Europe and sought to reduce its economic dependence on the
United States. The Times reported that “Germany had begun talks with France, a
nuclear power, on establishing a nuclear deterrent for Europe.”
France and Britain are the only
European countries to possess nuclear weapons. Only France is a member of the
European Union, although both countries are members of NATO. Macron had said
last year that, at Mr. Merz’s request, he was open to the possibility of
covering European allies with a French nuclear umbrella.
Currently, the United States provides
a nuclear guarantee to its NATO allies in Europe. However, in the past year,
the Trump administration's actions have undermined the trust in this
relationship. In particular, Trump’s push to “acquire” Greenland, a Danish
colony, by any means necessary, including force, raised the possibility of war
between the U.S. and Denmark, which was backed by other European powers. That
meant a breakdown of NATO, as temporary as it was, as the armed force of
Western imperialism headed by the United States. Europe collaborated closely
with the Biden administration through NATO in the war in Ukraine, with the
excuse of containing Russian expansionism. In fact, in the decades since the
collapse of the Soviet Union, it was NATO that has been expanding to Russia’s
borders even though Moscow had disbanded the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact,
formally the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, was a
collective defense treaty signed in Warsaw, Poland, between the Soviet Union and
seven other Eastern Bloc socialist republics in Central and Eastern Europe in
May 1955, during the Cold War, to guard against NATO, The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) founded in 1949 is an intergovernmental military alliance
between 12 member states. It was founded during the Cold War against the Soviet
Union, its ally in World War II. It currently has 32 members.
The relative decline of U.S.
capitalism since the 1970s
The two world wars in Europe
originated in Britain's relative decline as the dominant world power, as
Germany and the U.S. industrialized and outcompeted Britain by 1913.
The rise and global dominance of
British imperialism began around 1750. In 1757, at the Battle of Plassey,
Britain gained decisive control over Bengal, marking the beginning of
large-scale British rule in India. In the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), Britain
defeated France globally, gaining Canada and expanding its overseas dominance.
In 1815, at the Battle of Waterloo, Britain defeated Napoleon Bonaparte,
thereby becoming the world’s leading naval and financial power. At the
height of its dominance, Britain controlled 25% of the world’s land and
population, including India, large parts of Africa, Canada, Australia, and
strategic choke points such as the Suez Canal. Historians called this period
Pax Britannica. This dominance was powered by the Industrial Revolution,
1760-1840.
However, the German and U.S.
industrial revolutions began in the late nineteenth century, outpaced British
productivity, and competed for new products and industries. German
industrialization, especially from 1871 to World War II, excelled not in scale
but in science-based, high-technology industries. This was made possible by the
tight relationship between universities and industry. Germany pioneered
research universities, industrial laboratories, technical institutions, and
state-sponsored industrial coordination and investment banking. New
industries and products included synthetic dyes, pharmaceuticals (e.g., aspirin
and antiseptics), industrial chemicals (e.g., from firms such as BASF and
Bayer), and artificial fertilizers. Germany also excelled in steel and
heavy industries (something Britain lacked). Germany also excelled in
electrical engineering, particularly in the production of electrical
generators, power grids, industrial machinery, and telecommunications equipment
(major firms were Siemens and AEG). After the unification of Germany under Otto
von Bismarck, Germany rapidly became Europe’s leading industrial power. and the
science-driven industry model became the blueprint for the industrialization of
the U.S. and Japan.
U.S. industrialization, especially
1865-1913, was characterized by mass production, large-scale organization, the
exploitation of natural resources, and productivity growth. If Germany led in
science-driven industry, the U.S. led in scale, efficiency, and managerial
innovation. The U.S. perfected assembly line production and standardized
factory systems. Examples include Ford Motor Company and the moving assembly
line, which enabled high output, lower consumer prices, and the expansion of a
mass market. No other country matched American industrial scale before World
War I. The U.S. also excelled in steel and heavy industries, the world leader
by 1900 (Andrew Carnegie and U.S. Steel Company). By 1913, the U.S. produced
more steel than Britain and Germany combined. The U.S also built the
world's largest railroad network, integrated continental markets, and developed
modern logistics systems. The railroad stimulated steel, coal, finance, and
telegraph industries. The U.S. also led in the oil and energy industries (John
D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil Company). The U.S. became the world's largest
oil producer by the early twentieth century. The U.S. has developed large
vertically integrated corporations, modern corporate management structures, and
national financial markets. American firms were generally bigger than their
European counterpart.
Thus, British dominance of the world
economy was challenged by Germany, leading to World War I, in which the U.S.
joined the British side. However, the humiliation of Germany after its defeat
by the Allies contributed to World War II, thereby prolonging the rivalry for
global dominance. With the defeat of German imperialism and the collapse of
British imperialism, the United States became the leading power in Western
imperialism.
Trump’s second term in office
The underlying ideological basis of
the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement is the colonial settlers’ vision
of the United States as a white Judeo-Christian nation as part of Western
civilization. In this vision, the relative decline of the United States is due
to mass immigration from the global South by non-white people, some of whom are
not Christians. This has been central to Trump's criticism of European leaders
(Burns, 2025; Wong, 2025).
Trump’s second-term presidency is
characterized by social and cultural policies framed as efforts to restore
“traditional” institutional norms. This is tightly linked with a more
centralized, aggressive, racist, and anti-immigrant policy of mass deportation
of non-white immigrants and effectively closing the border with Mexico to most
asylum seekers. At the same time, Trump encouraged and welcomed the immigration
of White South Africans who claimed they were being discriminated for their
race. In this, Trump’s views merge with those of semi-fascist White
supremacists in the U.S. and anti-immigrant rightists and fascists in Europe.
Insofar as foreign policy is an
extension of domestic policy, that is, insofar as states act in their own
interests, Trump's foreign policy is shaped by his vision of MAGA (Cadier,
2024) Trump’s second term presidency is focused on making the executive branch
of the government central in policy making, as of December 15, 2025, he had
issued 221 executive orders since returning to the White House, more than he
did during his first four years in office, according to the American Presidency
Project, an online database of presidential documents (Hennen, 2025).
Trump’s foreign policy has been
equally muscular. Mainstream analysts have described it as “imperialist
and expansionist” in its approach to the Americas, recalling the Monroe
Doctrine. He has adopted an "America First" foreign policy toward
Europe, thereby threatening the postwar Western alliance, particularly NATO.
Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff, explained their policies as
"We're a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct
ourselves as a superpower." That was the mindset that engineered the
abduction of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on January 3.
The U.S. assault was preceded by an aerial bombing of boats off the shores of
Venezuela, with the claim that they were carrying drugs to the United States,
with no proof of their claim. Then, Trump placed the USS Abraham Lincoln and
five other battleships in the vicinity of the Venezuelan coast and ordered the
CIA to participate in the plan for the abduction of Maduro. All these
were clear displays of gunboat diplomacy. The term originated in the
nineteenth century, when Western imperialism intimidated other, less powerful
countries into granting concessions by threatening them with military
superiority, typically through naval power. The U.S. Congress, which
constitutionally has the power to declare war, remained silent throughout this
period because both parties in Washington long wanted to overthrow Maduro.
As of this writing, Trump has
stationed the USS Abraham Lincoln close to the borders of Iran and is sending a
second battleship while his administration is in negotiations with the Islamic
Republic. Trump is demanding the secession of nuclear enrichment, cutting back
on missile development and production, and ending support for its Islamic
allies in the Middle East.
Regarding the Middle East, Trump has
adopted a firmer pro-Israel policy, backing Benjamin Netanyahu’s government,
expanding regional normalization agreements by building on the Abraham Accords,
and joining Israel in the 12-day war with Iran by bombing deeply buried nuclear
facilities in Iran, which Israel was unable to do.
At the same time, Trump is stepping
back from earlier U.S. foreign policy, which treated the entire globe as its
domain, thereby partially conceding regional powers' spheres of influence. This
is true in the war in Ukraine as Trump’s administration has rejected Biden’s
anti-Russia policy, reduced open-ended military support for the Zelensky
government, and demanded a negotiated solution to the war. Regarding China, he
followed the bipartisan policy of long-term great-power competition framed in
economic-security terms. However, it does not challenge China’s dominance
in the South China Sea, and Trump seems open to negotiations over the future of
Taiwan.
In effect, Trump’s foreign policy has
revived the focus on President James Monroe’s 1823 doctrine (the Monroe
Doctrine), which viewed Latin America as the backyard of U.S. Imperialism,
while withdrawing from the institutional arrangement of Pax Americana, in
particular with Europe, which was largely shaped by the United States at the
conclusion of World War II.
Multilateral policies have been
replaced by bilateral arrangements that leverage the U.S. advantageous position
to make “new deals.” This has been most prominent in international trade, where
the World Trade Organization has been set aside in favor of imposing high
tariffs on a country or a set of countries to secure new trade arrangements
more favorable to the United States or to pursue a protectionist policy.
Economic historian Douglas Irwin
classifies U.S. tariff history into three periods: a revenue period (ca.
1790–1860), a restriction period (1861–1933), and a reciprocity period (from
1934 onwards). In the first period, from 1790 to 1860, average tariffs increased
from 20 percent to 60 percent before declining again to 20 percent. From 1861
to 1933, which Irwin characterizes as the "restriction period", the
average tariffs rose to 50 percent and remained at that level for several
decades. From 1934 onwards, in the "reciprocity period", the average
tariff declined substantially until it leveled off at 5 percent. Especially
after 1942, the U.S. began to promote free trade worldwide. Following Trump’s
2016 presidential victory, the US increased trade protectionism.
Another example is Trump’s Board of
Peace (BOP) project, which aims to replace the United Nations. In this project,
which grew out of Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan ratified by the Security Council
Resolution 2803. The BOP was proposed in September 2025 and established at the
sidelines of the World Economic Forum in January 2026. Donald Trump has been
appointed Chairman with veto power over all its decisions. Membership in
the BOP will require a pledge of one billion dollars over a three-year period,
effectively excluding most governments worldwide that cannot raise sufficient
funds to secure a seat on the BOP. As of this writing, only 25 of the 62
countries invited to join BOP have accepted. The European Union and China have
declined the offer to join it.
The relative decline of U.S.
imperialism
In 1960, the U.S. Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) accounted for 40% of global GDP. In 2025, the U.S. share
stood at 12.4%. It is estimated that the U.S. share will decline to 11.6% by
20230. China’s share of world GDP was 12.4% in 2025 and is projected to reach
21.4% by 20230 (Purchasing Power Parity (Int$). This indicates that China has
already overtaken the United States as the world’s largest economy, and that
forecasts project further U.S. decline and China’s continued growth by 2030
(World Economics, accessed February 15, 2026).
Moreover, Western industrial
capitalist economies, individually and collectively, have entered a new phase
of long-term, slow growth due to economic, technological, demographic, and
environmental factors (climate change-related damages are an increasing concern).
Conclusion
I have argued that the Make America
Great Again movement and the rise of Donald Trump himself and his
authoritarian, aggressive, and racist muscular domestic and foreign policies
are rooted in the relative decline of U.S. imperialism, the rise of a multipolar
world in which China is decidedly the rising power.
Pax Americana (American Century) has
ended. Yet increasingly, there is no reliable world order in its place. Rivalry
among the top powers is intensifying. The last time this occurred was in the
early twentieth century, when British world dominance was challenged by
Germany, leading to two world wars. The First World War saw the
mobilization of more than 65 million soldiers, and the deaths of almost 15
million soldiers and civilians combined. Approximately 8.8 million of these
deaths were of military personnel, while six million civilians died as a direct
result of the war, mostly through hunger, disease, and genocide. In World War
II resulted in an estimated total of 60–75 million deaths, including those who
died from deprivation, famine, and disease. This represents about 3% of the
estimated global population of 2.3 billion in 1940.
Today, another world war will be a
nuclear war; a war that will end much of life on Earth. This idea seems so
terrible that one would think no government would ever initiate such a war.
However, on August 6 and 9, 1945, the United States detonated two atomic bombs
over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, during World
War II. The aerial bombings killed 150,000 to 246,000 people, most of whom were
civilians.
The world is entering a dangerous new
nuclear age. This month, the New START treaty between the United States and
Russia — the last major restraint on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals —
expired. In its place, the Trump administration is substituting a policy of
vague threats and dangerous brinkmanship that portends an unconstrained arms
race not seen since the height of the Cold War.
The Trump administration has allowed
the New START treaty between the United States and Russia — the last major
restraint on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals — expire. The New York
Times editors characterized this approach as a ”new, unbound era,” which
“is alarming in both its words and its
mechanics. Rather than preserving the stability that has held for half a
century, the administration is weighing the deployment of more nuclear weapons
and, perhaps most recklessly, the resumption of underground nuclear testing.
(The Editorial Board, The New York Times, February 16, 2026).”
The inter-imperialist rivalry is
taking place as the world is facing other existential threats- catastrophic
climate change, the Sixth Extinction, and recurrent pandemics-which will
require close cooperation among key world governments.
These crises will not be solved unless
the world transitions, beginning with the key countries involved, from the
anthropocentric industrial capitalist civilization to an ecological socialist
society in which anthropocentrism is replaced by ecocentrism.
References:
Burns, Dasha. “POLITICO's
interview with Donald Trump.” POLITICO, December 9, 2025.
Cadier, David. “Foreign
Policy as the Continuation of Domestic Politics by Other Means: Pathways and
Patterns of Populist Politicization,” Foreign Policy Analysis. January
2024.
Ghafarizadeh, Mehrshad. “U.S.
Foreign Policy During Donald Trump’s Second Term: The
Strategy
of Peace Through Power.” World Politics. 2025.
Hennen, Mia. “Trump
has already issued more executive orders in his second term than in his first.”
PEW Research Center. December 16, 2025.
Landler, Mark, Jim Tankersley, Aurelien
Breeden and Richard Pérez-Peña. “Macron
Insists Europe Remains Central to Global Stability.” The New York Times,
February 13, 2026.
Safavipour, Abtin and Helia
Jalalirad. “The
Philosophical Underpinnings of Trump's Foreign
Policy:
Analyzing Key Influences and Implications.” Journal of Humanities
and Education Development. January 2025.
The New York Times. “Trump
Risks Igniting a Nuclear Wildfire.” February 16, 2026.“
Wong, Edward. “Rubio
Stresses Shared History to Europeans but Warns of ‘Civilizational Erasure’ in
Munich.” The New York Times. February 14, 2026.
World Economics. “Share
of Global GDP by Country.” Accessed February 15, 2026.
