Trump 2.0: The Unpredictability Of US Foreign Policy – OpEd

Donald Trump’s presidency has been characterized by several dramatic shifts in domestic and foreign policy and one of its most unorthodox features is his approach to foreign relations.

As more people start talking during his second term, known as “Trump 2.0,” many have noted that his foreign policy has no clear and consistent direction. Although his first term was marked by the “America  First” policy, his future policy remains unclear, and this has left allies and adversaries guessing about the  United States’ global strategy in the long run. Unpredictability seems to be the name of the game in his foreign policy, an approach that has created a good deal of uncertainty as to what the nation is diplomatically committed to and what its overall strategy is.

During his first term, Trump made decisions that disrupted long-standing diplomatic norms. The U.S. under his administration left several international agreements,  including the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris Climate Agreement, which showed that the focus had shifted to national interests over multilateral frameworks. However, his use of unconventional diplomacy—including direct talks with North  Korea—showed a preference for bold actions that went against the grain. While these moves generated global headlines, they raised questions about whether America was still committed to upholding a stable international system. Trump imposed tariffs on both allies and adversaries and threatened to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),  creating a climate of uncertainty that left international partners guessing whether these actions were a calculated bid to rewrite global power balances or the product of an ill-considered moment.

During the administration’s transition to what many have called Trump 2.0, the same unpredictability seems to continue without any more clarity on the broader vision. There is now a struggle to state a diplomatic roadmap that defines American objectives on vital global matters. The absence of a clearly defined strategy has paved the way for allies to doubt the reliability of U.S. commitments, and adversaries may view inconsistency as a way to explore the credibility of the United States. This ambiguity is especially apparent in the economic sphere. During his first term, Trump engaged in trade policy that was intended to address imbalances—primarily through tariffs and trade wars with  China—that shook global markets. However, his policy on economic partnerships was marked by inconsistency: He sought to renegotiate trade deals without offering stable long-term alternatives. Such erratic economic policies, besides eroding confidence in U.S. leadership, raise questions about the continuity of international trade relations if a similar approach is taken in a second term.

It is equally revealing to consider Trump’s management of military alliances and global security. Although he repeatedly declared the significance of long-standing alliances, including NATO, he also challenged them by demanding that member states increase their financial contributions and review their commitments. This contradictory stance has raised allies’ doubts as to whether the United States will continue to meet its historical commitments in the future.  Furthermore, Trump’s handling of global conflicts has been inconsistent: On the one hand, he ordered the withdrawal of troops from Syria, while, on the other hand, he authorized very aggressive military actions,  such as the assassination of the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. These rapid shifts in the strategy are making more and more international actors think that American foreign policy is more reactive than proactive, and therefore, it is difficult to know how to respond to a country whose strategic interests are vague and can change at any moment.

The effects of this ambiguity can be seen extending beyond the particular policy decisions.  When partners are left guessing the intention, stable alliances, and cooperative arrangements are difficult to form. Their troops may not want to commit fully to joint endeavors if they have no assurance of the U.S.’s future support, and rivals might be encouraged by the appearance of uncertainty or weakness of will. Furthermore,  the absence of a foreign policy framework leads America to lead globally in issues like climate change, cybersecurity,  and trade. This lack of strategic leadership could have significant consequences, including allowing other global players, such as China and Russia, to fill the gap left by the United States, which is unpredictable.

In its simplest form, the transformation of Trump’s foreign policy into what is now being called Trump  2.0 reveals the necessity of a more clear and consistent international strategy. The characteristic of his approach is the concentration on the immediate tactical moves rather than the development of stable and reliable frameworks in the long run. As a result, economic, military, and diplomatic initiatives are made without a clear, unified vision in mixed messages. Such a lack of direction not only undercuts the trust that allies have in the  United States but also complicates the work of the international community in addressing common problems and maintaining international stability. The resultant uncertainty presents risks that go beyond the sphere of policy rhetoric and impact such areas as the global economic stability and the security of key regions.

In the end, the United States can maintain its role as a stable and influential power on the world stage only by resolving the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in  Trump’s foreign policy. A more deliberate and coherent approach is needed—one that states clear long-term objectives, applies economic and military strategies consistently and restores confidence with international partners. Without such a comprehensive strategy, the ambiguity of Trump 2.0 will continue to erode the position of the United States and its capacity to meet the main challenges of the modern world. The future of U.S. foreign policy depends on its being able to chart a course between national self-interest and a stable and secure international order.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.

References

• Smith, J. (2024). Trump’s Unconventional Diplomacy: Rethinking America’s Global Strategy. New York, NY: Global Press.
• Johnson, M. (2024). America First and Beyond: The Evolution of U.S. Foreign Policy under Trump 2.0. Boston, MA: International Policy Publications.
• Williams, R. (2024). The Uncertain Path: Global Implications of Trump’s Foreign Policy. Chicago, IL: Strategic Insights Press.