Month-old Trump’s unilateralism sends ripples across the globe

By Deepak Parvatiyar

On February 21, 2025, the United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, to reaffirm President Donald Trump’s resolve to bring an end to the conflict in Ukraine, particularly through decisive actions at the United Nations Security Council. US State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the discussion between Rubio and Sybiha was the latest in multiple high-level engagements between Washington and Kyiv to achieve a durable peace.

The call reveals a significant shift in US foreign policy. The new approach leans towards deal-making, expresses scepticism about long-term military assistance, and prioritizes negotiations with Russia. In the process, Trump has notably shifted the United States away from its traditional alliances, particularly by making concessions to Russia and criticizing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He has also initiated the process of pulling US troops out of Europe, a move that has caused significant worry among the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and sparked serious discussions about the alliance’s collective security, especially considering the looming threats posed by Russia.

Undoubtedly with just over a month in office, Trump, after his second inauguration, has sent ripples across the globe, with decisions that have alarmed his friends and foes alike.

His approach has much unnerved European leaders, who are now questioning the future of NATO and the principles of collective defence.

During Trump’s first term (2017-2021), although there were significant tensions—especially concerning trade and defence spending—the core framework of the US-EU relationship remained largely stable. The Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs on European steel and aluminium led to retaliatory actions from the EU. Despite these economic frictions, the NATO security alliance endured, with the US increasing pressure on European nations to boost their defence budgets.

But the current trajectory indicates a deeper realignment, as European countries reassess their defence strategies, with some opting to increase military expenditures and focus on domestic arms production at a time when the Trump administration seems keen on nurturing ties with right-wing in Europe that aligns with its cultural and economic values. Particularly striking is billionaire business tycoon Elon Musk’s public support for the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party in poll-bound Germany, hinting at a change in US foreign policy that favours nationalist movements.

While relations with traditional allies have been strained, the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, spearheaded by Musk, has triggered major changes across federal agencies. The sudden halt and disbandment of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have thrown essential aid operations in 177 countries into disarray, raising serious humanitarian alarms. The swift suspension of foreign aid and the closure of USAID illustrate a retreat from cooperative global strategies, opting instead for a more forceful approach.

From Ukraine to Russia, India, Mexico, the European Union, and China, the administration’s moves have sparked uncertainty regarding US commitments, potentially jeopardizing collective security and empowering adversaries. Trump’s foreign policy has shown a marked departure from multilateral international engagement and is focused on aggressive domestic reforms. It has increasingly leaned towards unilateralism and transactional interactions.

“I think Canada would be much better off being the 51st state because we lose $200 billion a year with Canada. And I’m not going to let that happen,” Trump told Fox News channel’s Bret Baier in a Super Bowl pre-show interview on February 9, 2025. Another notable instance highlighting the pitfalls of transactional diplomacy was the Greenland situation involving Denmark. It underscores how such an approach can undermine trust among allies. Trump insists he can “have” Greenland despite clear indications from the prime ministers of Greenland and Denmark that the autonomous territory is not available for purchase. A contentious phone call between President Trump and Denmark’s Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, over this issue also highlights the tensions within NATO and raises questions about US commitment to longstanding alliances.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made it sound and clear that the U.S. will no longer support an unequal relationship, urging European nations to take on more responsibility for their own security. US Vice President JD Vance’s address at the Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2025, further heightened these tensions. He accused European Union leaders of regressing in their commitment to freedom of speech and democracy. This rhetoric was widely seen as a declaration of “ideological war” against US allies in Europe, signalling a significant shift from the previously collaborative tone of transatlantic relations.

The Greenland affair serves as a cautionary tale that could jeopardize the United States trade relationships with the European Union, potentially sparking tariff disputes or economic retaliation. Analysts are now cautioning that American companies might encounter increased trade barriers in both European and Asian markets as a consequence of this incident, which also highlights a troubling disconnect between the Trump administration’s view of national interests and the collaborative values that form the foundation of NATO.

The most notable shift in American foreign policy revolves around Ukraine, which also concerns the 32 member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Some believe that his strategy might lead to a quicker resolution of the conflict, but there are also concerns that it could undermine Ukraine’s independence. 

Trump’s approach to foreign policy frequently centres on economic negotiations and strategic leverage. There are indications that he would pursue access to Ukraine’s natural resources as a prerequisite for maintaining US support, a proposition that has faced pushback from Ukrainian leadership.

Before diving into that topic, it’s important to acknowledge the political upheaval that Trump’s statements are causing in nations like India. On February 21, during a Governors’ working session, he announced for the third consecutive day, the cancellation of a $21 million USAID grant intended for “boosting voter turnout in India”. He stated, “And $21 million going to my friend Prime Minister [Narendra] Modi in India for voter turnout. We’re giving 21 million for voter turnout in India. What about us? I want voter turnout too.”

This declaration sparked a significant political debate in India, drawing in senior government officials and prompting concerns about foreign influence on the nation’s democratic processes. As he named Modi, the Congress party pounced on it stating that it proved that Modi was the beneficiary. Earlier, the Ministry of External Affairs, represented by spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, indicated that the government was looking into the “deeply troubling” revelations surrounding USAID’s operations.

Various departments are currently investigating the potential extent of foreign involvement in India’s elections. The situation has led to a political uproar, with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the opposition Congress party exchanging accusations regarding the use of foreign funds. Additionally, conflicting reports surfaced about the actual allocation of the $21 million; while it was initially claimed to be directed to India, The Indian Express reported that the funds were actually sent to Bangladesh. The USAID is silent so far on the issue, but Trump’s remarks could affect the diplomatic relationship between the United States and India, particularly if inquiries uncover any unauthorized meddling in India’s elections. This situation has also sparked a wider conversation about the influence and significance of foreign aid in independent countries, especially regarding the clarity and motives associated with such financial support. 

The dynamics of U.S.-India relations under Trump are now defined by a fusion of strategic alignment and economic friction, revealing both enduring elements and shifts from his first term in office. Expanding on the defence collaboration initiated during his initial term, both India and the US have pledged to a fresh 10-year agreement focused on improving interoperability and joint production of defence technologies. However, in contrast, the economic relationship is riddled with difficulties. The “America First” policy has led to proposals for tariffs, including a 25% tax on Indian pharmaceutical imports which is nearly half of the generic medications used in the US. This raised fears about escalating healthcare costs. Moreover, trade imbalances persist as a significant concern, with India’s merchandise trade deficit reaching $22.99 billion in January 2025. Both nations are gearing up for discussions aimed at resolving tariff issues and pursuing a comprehensive trade agreement, with preliminary talks expected to commence by the fall of 2025.

The proposed tariffs on Indian goods and the focus on reciprocal trade underscore a transition towards a more transactional economic framework. 

Trump’s style of diplomacy leans towards transactional dealings. His approach to foreign policy frequently centres on economic negotiations and strategic leverage. Hence, he now pursues access to Ukraine’s natural resources as a prerequisite for maintaining US support, a proposition that faces pushback from Ukrainian leadership.

When examining Trump’s approach to Ukraine, several notable elements emerge. Firstly, there is a clear focus on prioritizing negotiation rather than relying heavily on military assistance. Additionally, there appears to be a decrease in the US commitment to providing military aid. Furthermore, the possibility of making concessions to Russia is also a significant aspect of his strategy.

Trump has expressed his intention to swiftly resolve the conflict in Ukraine through direct negotiations, potentially involving discussions between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin. His hesitance to guarantee ongoing military support has raised alarms that Ukraine might face pressure to make concessions that could jeopardize its sovereignty. The US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz recently indicated that Zelenskyy needs to re-engage in negotiations. He stated, “and we’re going to continue to have discussions about where that deal is going,” following Zelenskyy’s public dismissal of a proposal concerning rare earth minerals. In a notable move, US Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent travelled to Ukraine to propose American co-investment in the country’s mineral resources. After this visit, Trump criticized Zelenskyy for allegedly treating Bessent “rather rudely.” Additionally, the US is considering the potential of Ukraine’s aluminium foundry, which, if repaired, could fulfil America’s entire annual aluminium import needs. Trump also took to his Truth Social platform to warn, “A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left.”

During his time in politics, Trump has voiced strong opposition to American military support for Ukraine, contending that European countries ought to bear more of the burden. This viewpoint is consistent with his overarching “America First” agenda, which aims to minimize US engagement in international disputes. Experts suggest that Trump might advocate for a resolution that involves territorial concessions, potentially acknowledging Russia’s authority over certain occupied areas in return for a halt to hostilities. This strategy could significantly reshape the geopolitical environment and establish a benchmark for subsequent conflicts, and his position on Ukraine may undermine European trust in American leadership, possibly giving adversaries such as Russia a sense of empowerment. Trump has often aimed at NATO allies for their insufficient defence spending, leading to concerns regarding the unity of the alliance. The president is pushing harder for NATO allies to meet higher financial commitments, calling for member nations to increase their defence spending to 5% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This dramatic rise from the previous 2% guideline too has led to significant discord among European partners. It may be recalled that throughout Trump’s initial term from 2017 to 2021, NATO faced considerable scrutiny over its defence spending. The President emphasized the importance of member countries meeting the 2% of GDP guideline for defence expenditures. This push led to a notable rise in military budgets in Europe and Canada, contributing approximately $130 billion in extra spending by the year 2020.

Trump’s neighbourhood policy is also an example of unilateralism and transactional dealings. In a move to promote national pride, Trump has renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and reverted Mount Denali to Mount McKinley. And Trump’s several other initiatives too have profoundly influenced both the domestic and international arenas, often embracing controversies and legal disputes.

Trump is commonly acknowledged as the only US President in the last five decades who did not launch a new major war during his term from 2017 to 2021. However, the US was still involved in several ongoing conflicts that had started before his presidency, such as those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. While he did not instigate a new war, he did escalate tensions with Iran, particularly with the assassination of Qasem Soleimani in 2020, and increased drone operations. However, unlike other Presidents, he avoided committing to a full-scale military intervention.

This time, the classification of six Mexican drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) represents a notable intensification in the dynamics of U.S.-Mexico relations, potentially paving the way for sanctions or military interventions that could adversely affect trade between the two nations. This designation not only escalates tensions but also raises concerns about the broader implications for economic collaboration, as both countries navigate the complexities of security and commerce.

In response, Mexico has initiated discussions around constitutional reforms aimed at countering U.S. influence, indicating a shift towards economic independence. This move reflects a growing resistance to what is perceived as U.S. overreach, and if Mexico were to impose trade restrictions, it could significantly disrupt supply chains in key sectors like automotive, agriculture, and energy. Such actions might inspire other countries to challenge U.S. counterterrorism efforts, while also raising alarms about China’s potential to expand its investments in Latin America, thereby undermining U.S. dominance in the region.

Concerning China, Trump’s first term set the stage for economic tensions with Beijing, but his second term has taken these efforts to a new level, broadening the focus from trade to include extensive geopolitical manoeuvres. The decrease in foreign aid and the push for technological separation highlight a strategic effort to counteract China’s influence worldwide. Meanwhile, China is reacting by enhancing its local industries and trying to step into the gaps left by the U.S. on the global front, pointing to an escalating competition between the two countries.

Trump is moving with a bustling pace. In the first month following his second inauguration, he made headlines by signing an extraordinary 73 executive orders, a record-setting pace aimed at swiftly advancing his policy goals. This figure is more than double the number of orders signed by Joe Biden and over four times that of Barack Obama during their respective first months in office.

“These executive orders have eliminated excessive regulations; secured our borders; revitalized our domestic energy industry; removed divisive DEI initiatives from federal operations; curtailed the misuse of government power; reduced waste, fraud, and abuse; reinstated ‘America First’ trade and foreign policies, and ultimately brought back common sense. The President also enacted the Laken Riley Act, which mandates that ICE [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detain illegal immigrants who are arrested or charged with theft or violence,” stated Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt during a press briefing in Washington on February 20, 2025.

Nevertheless, the sheer number and focus of Trump’s executive actions, which address immigration, federal employment, and social policies, indicate a strategic move to circumvent congressional discussions and implement swift changes through executive power.

The legal framework has been particularly volatile concerning several pivotal initiatives. One highly debated order that seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants has faced a barrage of lawsuits. Federal courts, including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, have issued injunctions to stop its enforcement, raising concerns about possible violations of the 14th Amendment. In addition, the administration’s efforts to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programmes within federal agencies have led to legal challenges from affected employees. Although the U.S. Justice Department has defended these actions, a federal judge has temporarily blocked the terminations while further hearings are conducted. Furthermore, executive orders that limit gender-affirming medical care for individuals under 19 have encountered strong resistance from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, resulting in federal judges temporarily halting these orders and allowing medical facilities in states like Colorado to continue providing such care. These legal conflicts illustrate the significant opposition to the administration’s policies, with federal courts often stepping in to challenge the implementation of controversial executive orders.

Besides, the recent declaration of a national energy emergency has accelerated the approval process for more than 600 energy and infrastructure projects, mainly targeting fossil fuels. This development has raised significant environmental alarms and cast doubt on the administration’s resolve to pursue sustainable energy initiatives. In a bid to decrease its energy reliance on the United States, the EU is now ramping up its renewable energy projects and looking into different gas supply options. This approach is intended to strengthen energy self-sufficiency and reduce the risks associated with potential shifts in U.S. policy.

However, despite widespread criticism, a large portion of the electorate seems to rally behind President Trump’s adherence to his campaign commitments. A recent survey reveals that 70% of voters feel he is following through on his pledges.

Image by Wolfgang Eckert from Pixabay