Trump-First Foreign Policy Pits the US Against Everybody Else

Some presidents come to be synonymous with their foreign policy. Eisenhower’s containment strategy. Kennedy’s missile crisis. Reagan’s “Tear down this wall.” Trump’s unruly and deeply personal foreign policy defies neat descriptions. Is he an isolationist? If so, why did he authorize airstrikes against the Houthis and bomb Iran’s nuclear sites? An interventionist then? Not really. He’s vowed to steer clear of extended foreign entanglements and bring home thousands of US troops stationed abroad. The “peace president”? He fervently hopes so, though that’s for a secretive Nobel committee in Oslo to decide.

Trump himself has said he’s guided by his campaign slogan: His policy litmus test is whether it puts “America First.” Yet his extraordinary efforts to force Bolsonaro’s (Brazil’s former president) release show that’s not necessarily the case, either.

In business and politics, Trump has been guided by instinct, avarice, sometimes revenge—but always self-interest. This appears to be even truer now that he’s tranquilized Congress and racked up Supreme Court rulings that have granted him ever more freedom to do as he pleases. And what appears to please Trump most is for him to win. This approach to relationships with allies and adversaries alike is the consistent feature of what you might call a “Trump First” foreign policy.

This us-versus-them outlook means there isn’t that big a difference between an ally and an adversary when they’re sitting on the other side of a negotiating table. If longtime European Union partners are ripping off America with rigged trade deals, as Trump frequently complains (the EU was created to “screw” the US, he says), why shouldn’t he hit them with tariffs the same as anyone else? And why not cultivate political (and business) ties with authoritarian-leaning regimes in Europe and the Middle East? A deal is a deal, whether it’s with a democracy or a dictatorship. A country’s record on human rights or free and fair elections doesn’t necessarily need to enter the equation.

Trump’s approach has gotten results that might not have happened under a more cautious, consensus-minded president, says Kroenig, who worked in the US Department of Defense during Democratic and Republican administrations, including Trump’s first term in office.  But Trump’s tendency to brush aside military and diplomatic expertise and go with his gut has also led to blunders that presidents with a less seat-of-the-pants foreign policy might have avoided.

In private, EU officials are venting their anger about Trump’s lopsided demands and their own failure to unite and rebuff them. There’s talk of seeking new consumer markets in Asia, Africa and Latin America to diminish the power of future US presidents to dictate terms.

It’s too early to tell whether Trump’s tariffs will turn out to be worth the political turmoil and economic upheaval they’ve caused. The full effects of the tariffs currently in place haven’t kicked in, and several large trading partners have yet to strike a trade deal with the US.

show less