America First as Grand Strategy

The mixed emotions and anxiety in the congratulatory messages by world leaders on Donald Trump’s re-election to a second term must have made the future 47th President triumphant. Many foreign leaders who assumed Trump’s downfall was inevitable had to retract their criticism, delete tweets, and downplay past statements labeling him as destructive, a traitor to the West, or a 'neo-Nazi sympathizing sociopath.’ Trump’s foreign policy has been a topic of fierce debate since he first took office, and his ‘America First’ slogan has drawn comparisons to the isolationist policy advocated by Charles Lindbergh at the beginning of World War II. Trump has little respect for the neoliberal elite and the international institutions they hold dear. While he is no Wilsonian idealist, realpolitik is much more central to Trump’s diplomacy than his critics care to admit.

Walter Russell Mead has suggested that Trump is best understood as a Jacksonian politician: someone with a deep-rooted skepticism of elites and a 'fist-waving defiance' in the face of the establishment. His approach to politics and foreign policy echoes the proconsular style of a bygone era. If Trump is a Jacksonian at home, his diplomacy abroad could be compared to Lord Palmerston’s— use diplomacy to prevent any nation from becoming too strong, secure strategic routes and trade interests, encourage liberalism in client states to counter revanchist powers, intervene where necessary to ensure national ascendancy in global affairs, and avoid costly imperialist adventures in far-off regions. Sound familiar?

Trump has campaigned on the platform of bringing peace to the various conflicts America is entangled in—war in the middle east, war in Eurasia, and a potential showdown with China. The world crises Trump 2.0 will face are diverse and interconnected. Russia is firmly in the Chinese orbit, North Korean soldiers are fighting in the battlefields of Kursk and Donetsk, Israel is fighting three simultaneous wars with Hamas, Lebanon, and Iran, and Taiwan is preparing for a siege. A Palmerston quote comes to mind: “The question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it.”

In “On Grand Strategy” historian John Lewis Gaddis examines how successful leaders balanced ambition with practicality in the prosecution of wars. He argues that true grand strategy is not simply about setting bold objectives but aligning aspirations within the constraints of reality. To illustrate this, Gaddis incorporates Isaiah Berlin’s essay The Hedgehog and the Fox, to explain competing approaches to knowledge and strategy: "the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." In Berlin’s view, hedgehogs build their worldview around a single, unifying vision, while foxes adopt a pragmatic approach, adapting to a wide range of perspectives without reducing them to a single truth. According to Gaddis, effective grand strategy requires both the clarity and guiding vision of the hedgehog and the adaptability and pragmatism of the fox. Similarly, a statesman has to reconcile his ideals within the constraints of power and diplomacy. 

A central feature of Trump’s foreign policy has been his unabashed use of American power to force negotiations. His pursuit of tariffs was not merely a matter of imposing costs on allies or adversaries; it was a calculated move rooted in his experience as a property tycoon navigating the brutal world of New York real estate. The “art of the deal,” as Trump himself famously coined, is at the heart of his international strategy. He believes in wielding every tool available to bring other nations to the negotiating table in a position where the United States has leverage. During the 2024 election campaign he repeatedly emphasized how he used the threat of American power to force North Korea, the Taliban, and Vladimir Putin to back off from escalatory moves. Even during COVID-19, Trump used the killing of Qassem Soleimani and the signing of the Abraham Accords to exert ‘maximum pressure’ on Iran. His hedgehog-vision made him the leader who promised to fight ‘radical islam’ and ‘bomb the sh–’ out of ISIS in 2016, and his fox-like courting of the Arab-American vote won him the support of the largest muslim-majority city in America in 2024. 

Israel and the Middle East

Trump’s willingness to upend multilateralism in favor of bilateral relationships with world leaders reflects his belief that personal diplomacy and individual relations yield better results. His engagement with the Arab states was unconventional— trusting his jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner to broker the Abraham Accords. This strategy led to the unprecedented recognition of Israel by several Gulf states, reshaping regional alliances in ways previously thought unlikely. No president has gained as much personal credibility among Arabs and Israelis than Donald Trump. He must draw on it to restore peace and stability to the region. 

One potential pathway to a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians would be to invite the Saudis to rebuild Gaza. While it would involve a large measure of diplomatic goodwill and protracted negotiation, it could result in a new balance of power. Construction firms would ensure no tunnel is dug under a hospital or school backed by the Saudi state, and Israel would be more reluctant to drop a bomb on a building for that same reason.

The other pillar of Trump’s Middle East policy should be a resumption of the ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against the Iranian state. Striking the Houthis in Yemen when necessary, ensuring security and freedom of navigation in the Gulf, promoting dissident Iranian groups, and new weapons sales to the Arab states would be a good beginning. 

Ukraine and Russia

One of the sharpest criticisms of Trump during his first term was his affinity to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump has repeatedly emphasized his “friendship” with Putin, a move that has alarmed foreign policy experts and domestic critics alike. His detractors warn that this affinity could have dire consequences for Ukraine, whose fate rests in the balance amid the ongoing conflict with Russia. Pro-Ukraine voices are already sounding the alarm, fearing that a second Trump term could leave Ukraine without the support it needs.

Trump’s criticism of Joe Biden’s handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal suggests, however, that he is wary of a similar disaster unfolding under his watch. If Putin were to underestimate Trump’s resolve to restore American credibility, Trump might resort to harsher measures—perhaps even giving the Ukrainians a freer hand in defending their sovereignty. Trump’s recent warning to Putin to not escalate the war, and his choice in picking foreign policy hawks for his new cabinet would seem to validate this view. Alternatively, Trump could pursue more peaceful initiatives, such as reducing the price of oil by boosting American energy production, weakening Russia’s worsening economic position. 

Trump's behavior towards Putin brings to mind Kissinger’s analysis of the Russian leader: that he was a ‘character out of Dostoevsky.’ Dostoevsky’s anti-Petrine paranoia of the west has found a home in Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, who repeatedly expresses his fear and insecurity about the erosion of Russian identity, framed in eschatological terms. Trump has an uncanny instinct for understanding human character— he knows Putin is a man who needs constant reassurance, and any negotiation with America must avoid undermining Russian domestic stability or making Putin appear weak. At the same time, a Trump 2.0 grand strategy must steer clear of idealistic hopes of a renewed ‘reset’ with Russia, a futile exercise. A pragmatic strategy that seeks coexistence without destabilizing the Russian regime and contains its predilection to intervene in the former Soviet satellite states is the key to a stable, long-term relationship. 

Indo-Pacific Region

Trump will face significant challenges in the Indo-Pacific region. He must begin the hard task of restoring American deterrence in the wake of the abandonment of Afghanistan. Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power and escalatory rhetoric has raised fears of a potential invasion of Taiwan—a move that would cement China’s dominance in the region. A direct military invasion of Taiwan may be unlikely, given the risks involved, but a blockade is a more realistic scenario. Trump’s challenge will be to deter such actions while avoiding outright war. China’s economic situation is precarious, relying heavily on stimulus spending to maintain growth. The state’s need to maintain stability, coupled with Xi’s authoritarian control has revived China’s territorial ambitions. Trump would likely resort to personal diplomacy once again, seeking a meeting with Xi to smooth over tensions and receive a guarantee of Taiwanese sovereignty. In exchange, Trump could offer to ease some of the sanctions imposed on Chinese companies, potentially paving the way for a new agreement between Washington and Beijing. 

Realistically speaking such an agreement is extremely unlikely. Unlike his relations with Putin, it will be difficult for Trump to keep China close to keep it in check. China is now a great power, able to project economic and military might. Like Putin’s historical grievance, China cites the century of humiliation as the raison-d’etre for its revanchism. Trump’s long term goal in the Indo-Pacific will be to check China’s influence in the region.. Alongside negotiating with Xi, Trump should continue defense and trade negotiations with Taiwan, possibly including the sale of F-35s and defensive technology. The appointment of China hawks to key foreign policy posts by Trump is a positive sign that his approach to China and Taiwan will not be as weak as Joe Biden’s.  

Trump will also look to regional partners like India, Japan, and Australia - members of the Quad that Trump revived in 2017. While Joe Biden continued the dialogue, the 2024 Quad meeting resulted in a weak joint statement that avoided any mention of China. Australia is partly the cause— Prime Minister Albanese has been trying to repair relations after Scott Morrison, the previous conservative PM, blamed China for COVID-19. In response, China enacted a 4-year ban on Australian imports, only lifted recently. 

India also recently negotiated a border agreement with China, concluding a four-year standoff in the Himalayan border. While India still maintains a defensive posture regarding China, its dissatisfaction with American foreign policy has been made clear. Indian Prime Minister Modi’s positive interactions with Putin and Xi at the BRICS summit was India’s way of flexing its strategic autonomy— Democrat ease at criticizing Modi and India’s domestic issues did not go unnoticed by New Delhi. More unwelcome was American intervention in Bangladesh through civil society orgs, destabilizing India’s neighbor and Sheikh Hasina’s government, which was friendly with Modi. Trump will not indulge in such ideologically blinkered approaches. 

Many Indian and American commentators keep raising the specter of tariffs there is uncertainty whether Mr. Trump’s bark will have a bite given the shifting fault lines in the region. Trump will look to India as a bulwark against China, and engage in renewed defense and trade ties— which may include the sale of jet engines for India’s long-delayed indigenous fighter jet project. His friendship with Modi will be an asset, as he tries to ensure India leans in the direction of the Quad, and not towards Russia or China. 

The idea of an Asian NATO was floated by Japan’s newly elected Prime Minister Ishiba, who retreated on the idea just as quickly. It’s a nonstarter for many reasons: it would exclude India, opposition to a militaristic Japan, and the simple fact that too many East Asian countries are unwilling to join Japan in an organization that would revive memories of the Great East Asia co-prosperity sphere. The British, French, and the Germans were able to unite in Europe despite their past, but South Korea can’t stand when Japanese politicians visit Yasukuni shrine, and the Japanese are willing to risk a diplomatic fight over a messenger app. Perhaps it is because of these continued tensions that Trump has advocated for American pragmatism in the region, interpreted by American foreign policy experts as a desire to retreat from the region entirely. Trump has little regard for the nationalist sentiments of East Asian countries if it comes at the expense of American grand strategy. Still, anti-American sentiment in Asia is reducing every year as China’s ambitions recontextualize American presence in the region.  

Europe

Most European leaders dislike Trump, and the feeling is mutual. Trump’s long standing criticisms of NATO and American expenditure for European security are well known. Trump’s comments at the 2018 UNGA about Germany’s cozy relationship with Russia were proven prescient, in spite of the derisive laughter of the audience. The EU’s treatment of first friend Elon Musk, and the insulting comments by European diplomats who assumed Trump’s political career was over will be remembered. The administration will be staffed by numerous eurosceptics, who don’t look kindly at European criticism of American democracy, American culture, and American hegemony. Rather than dealing with Brussels, Trump has already hinted at giving Britain a favorable trade deal that would leave the EU in the cold. Trump may try his best to bypass the French and the Germans on Ukraine, employing personal diplomacy to settle the conflict. Trump is also likely to favor the Eastern European nations who are pro-American and right-leaning leaders like Prime Minister Meloni of Italy. Still, there’s potential to cooperate on issues like energy, and countering China.   

For Trump, foreign policy is an extension of his worldview—transactional, driven by personal relationships, and focused on winning. In a world where old alliances and liberal institutions have lost credibility, Trump’s willingness to tear up the rulebook and forge a new path—on America’s terms—will be the very thing that defines his legacy. For Trump, the goal is clear: restore American dominance on the world stage and ensure that the U.S. dictates the terms of engagement. Critics may argue that this approach risks destabilizing global alliances, but from Trump’s perspective, the chaos is a necessary part of reshaping an international order that he believes no longer serves American interests. His foreign policy may lack the grand ideals of past American presidents, but it is rooted in the belief that America’s national interest comes first, and everything else is negotiable.

Statesmanship is no easy task. It demands patience, wisdom, and the talent for strategy. Other leaders have tried, and failed to leave a mark on American foreign policy. Perhaps it has been left to the managerial class for far too long. The chances of another world war are now closer than ever. Pragmatism and perseverance are exactly the qualities America needs as it forges its path in the 21st century as the most prosperous and strong nation the world has ever seen. To quote another famous statesman, “I always like to believe there are…possibilities.”