Jan 10, 2026 By Kent James 6 min read

Editor’s note: This is the second of four parts.

Donald Trump’s foreign policy is a radical change from the foreign policy of previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican.

Since the Cold War, there has been a general bipartisan agreement that the United States should be a dominant player on the world scene, initially in what was seen as an existential threat in the Soviet Union, and after its fall, as the sole superpower. In the last 20 years, the consensus has been that the greatest future threat is the growing power of an un-democratic China. One of the assumptions of the advocates of the liberal world order was that if China embraced capitalism and free trade, democracy would follow. Unfortunately, that has not turned out to be true.

America’s determination to be a dominant power on the world scene after World War II led to the development of powerful sectors with interests in maintaining that dominance; never again would the U.S. reduce its armed forces to a peacetime army as it had after all prior wars. The arms race led to the growing power of defense contractors and what President Eisenhower identified as the military industrial complex.

The U.S. also took a dominant role in providing aid to regions struggling with famine or disease. This has led to a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that projected American power and influence throughout the world; the left, in criticizing the tendency for the U.S. to get involved (often militarily) called it “the blob” while in Trump’s world, it’s part of the “deep state.” Critics on both the left and the right criticize the compulsion for the U.S. to be involved in whatever happens around the world.

Looking at world history, world-dominating empires always pass from the scene, whether they are defeated by other empires or simply fall apart due to internal forces. It is unrealistic to expect the U.S. to dominate the world as it has since the fall of the USSR, so pouring more resources into maintaining that dominance will eventually be a losing battle, so Trump’s challenge to this idea has merit.

While we are the dominant power we should create a system where no one power dominates, since such a system will be harder to create once we’ve lost the dominant position (and our actions would accurately be seen as self-serving). This would be done through building alliances and enforcing acceptable international norms. Unfortunately, this is not Trump’s foreign policy.

President Trump is an impulsive leader, so his actions are often not part of a coherent strategy. Trump invoked tariffs on most countries claiming that long-term trade deficits justified his actions because they were a national security issue (otherwise tariffs are set by Congress). But then he raised tariffs 10% on Canada when a provincial government ran an ad he didn’t like and imposed tariffs on Brazil, a country with which we have a trade surplus, because they had the temerity to prosecute Jair Bolsonaro (a Trump-like politician the president likes) for attempting to overturn an election. Trump reduced tariffs paid by Switzerland (from 39% to 15%) after they gave him an expensive Rolex clock.

Trump claims to have ended eight wars (though the figure seems to go up as time goes on). Most of these claims are so weak he has gotten confused about the countries that were involved (Albania instead of Armenia and Azerbaijan). Some are longstanding conflicts that continue (Pakistan-India), others had momentary pauses but have resumed fighting (Thailand-Cambodia).

There is one conflict that Trump’s unorthodox approach has made genuine progress – Israel-Gaza. President Biden’s “bear hug” approach essentially gave Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu carte blanche in responding to Hamas’ horrendous Oct. 7 attack, which meant the U.S. was subsidizing Israel’s scorched earth approach to eliminating Hamas from Gaza, regardless of the civilian casualties. Trump seemed eager to let Israel “finish the job,” but he eventually soured on that approach after Israel bombed Hamas representatives in Qatar (a U.S. ally that had gifted Trump a plane).

When Netanyahu took advantage of Iran’s weakened position in the Middle East to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, Trump initially condemned the attack, but after seeing the positive response to the attack, Trump decided to join in, and used specialized bunker buster bombs (that Israel did not have) to try to destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. But after supporting Israel’s attack on Iran, he pressured Israel to accept a cease fire with Hamas in Gaza. While Israel has violated the cease fire and there is not yet a long-term solution, Trump has made more progress than Biden ever did on this issue, and deserves credit.

Trump claimed he would solve the Russia-Ukraine conflict “on day one.” This issue has probably been Trump’s worst; on more than one occasion he blamed Ukraine for fighting this war as if Ukraine had started the war instead of simply defending itself after Russia invaded. Trump has cut military aid to Ukraine and intelligence support, weakening Ukraine. Trump wants to “solve” this war by forcing Ukraine to accept Russian terms for peace.

While one can make a rational argument for the U.S. reducing its role in European security over time, the Ukrainian war is not the place. The Ukrainian people are fighting and dying to defend their homeland, and we should give them the support they need. They are weakening our greatest enemy, have shown they have the commitment and skill to be successful on the battlefield (unlike regimes we supported for years in Vietnam and Iraq), and it should be remembered, we offered them a security guarantee to get them to give up their nuclear weapons, which they did. In addition to Ukraine being vital to the idea that nations cannot expand by invading their neighbors, U.S. support has given the U.S. military valuable experience in modern warfare and weakened a major rival, all without costing American lives and strengthening the U.S. defense industry.

Trump’s impulsiveness, lack of long-term thinking, and willingness to break global norms has not improved America’s standing in the world.

Kent James, of East Washington, has a doctorate in history and policy from Carnegie Mellon University.