Donald Trump’s Second Term: Implications for Global Affairs in Ukraine, the Middle East, and China

Donald Trump’s potential return to the presidency is poised to fundamentally alter US foreign policy, potentially introducing significant changes across various global issues amidst ongoing conflicts and instability worldwide. Throughout his campaign, Trump articulated broad policy commitments, frequently lacking specific details, grounded in principles of non-interventionism and trade protectionism—or, as he terms it, “America First.” His electoral success signals one of the most substantial potential shifts in Washington’s foreign relations approach in many years, occurring during concurrent international crises. Insights into his probable strategies for different regions can be gathered from both his public statements during the campaign and his performance in office from 2017 to 2021. During his campaign, Trump repeatedly asserted his ability to conclude the conflict between Russia and Ukraine “in a day.” When questioned about the method, he indicated he would oversee a resolution but has refrained from providing specifics. A research document published in May by two of Trump’s former national security advisers suggested that the United States should continue supplying weapons to Ukraine, but condition this support on Kyiv engaging in peace negotiations with Russia. To incentivize Russia, Western nations would commit to postponing Ukraine’s desired entry into Nato. The former advisers recommended that Ukraine should not abandon its aspirations to reclaim all territory under Russian occupation, but should negotiate based on the current front lines. Trump’s Democratic adversaries, who accuse him of being overly accommodating to Russian President Vladimir Putin, contend that his strategy amounts to a capitulation for Ukraine and would jeopardize the entirety of Europe. He has consistently stated that his primary objective is to end the war and reduce the financial burden on US resources. The extent to which the former advisers’ paper reflects Trump’s personal views is uncertain, but it likely offers an indication of the counsel he may receive. His “America First” perspective on ending the conflict also extends to the critical matter of Nato’s future, the transatlantic collective defense alliance established after World War Two, initially as a safeguard against the Soviet Union. Nato currently comprises 32 member states, and Trump has long expressed skepticism about the alliance, accusing European nations of relying on America’s protective guarantees without adequate contribution. Whether he would actually withdraw the US from Nato, an action that would represent the most profound alteration in transatlantic defense relations in nearly a century, remains a subject of debate. Some of his supporters propose that his firm stance is merely a negotiating tactic to compel members to adhere to the alliance’s defense spending targets. However, Nato leaders are genuinely concerned about the implications of his victory for the alliance’s future and how its deterrent capability will be perceived by adversarial leaders. Similar to Ukraine, Trump has pledged to bring “peace” to the Middle East—implying an end to the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza and the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon—but has not detailed how. He has frequently asserted that, had he been in power instead of Joe Biden, Hamas would not have attacked Israel due to his “maximum pressure” policy on Iran, which provides funding to the group. Generally, it is probable that Trump would seek to reinstate this policy, which involved his administration withdrawing the US from the Iran nuclear deal, imposing more stringent sanctions against Iran, and the killing of Gen Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s most influential military commander. During his time in the White House, Trump implemented strongly pro-Israel policies, designating Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocating the US embassy there from Tel Aviv—a decision that galvanized Trump’s Christian evangelical base, a key Republican voting bloc. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to Trump as the “best friend that Israel has ever had in the White House.” Yet, critics contend that his policies had a destabilizing impact on the region. Palestinians boycotted the Trump administration due to Washington’s abandonment of their claim to Jerusalem, a city that constitutes the historical core of national and religious life for Palestinians. Their isolation deepened when Trump facilitated the so-called “Abraham Accords,” a landmark agreement to normalize diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab and Muslim nations. These accords were achieved without Israel being required to accept a future independent Palestinian state alongside it—the so-called two-state solution—which had previously been a prerequisite for Arab countries for such a regional agreement. The participating countries were instead granted access to advanced US weaponry in exchange for recognizing Israel. The Palestinians found themselves at one of the most isolated junctures in their history, marginalized by the sole power capable of exerting significant influence on both sides of the conflict, further diminishing their perceived capacity to safeguard themselves on the ground. Trump made several declarations during the campaign expressing his desire for the Gaza war to conclude. He has maintained a complex, at times strained, relationship with Netanyahu, but undeniably possesses the capacity to exert pressure on him. He also has a history of robust relationships with leaders in key Arab countries that have connections with Hamas. It remains unclear how he would reconcile his wish to demonstrate strong support for the Israeli leadership with his efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Trump’s supporters have often characterized his unpredictability as a diplomatic advantage, but in the highly contentious and volatile Middle East, in the midst of a crisis already of historical magnitude, the outcome of this approach is far from certain. Trump will need to decide how—or if—to advance the stalled diplomatic initiative launched by the Biden administration to secure a Gaza ceasefire in exchange for the release of hostages held by Hamas. America’s stance toward China represents its most strategically vital foreign policy domain, with the broadest implications for global security and commerce. While in office, Trump characterized China as a “strategic competitor” and levied tariffs on certain Chinese imports into the US. This action prompted reciprocal tariffs from Beijing on American imports. Efforts to de-escalate the trade dispute were made, but the Covid pandemic eliminated this possibility, and relations deteriorated further as the former president referred to Covid as a “Chinese virus.” Although the Biden administration asserted a more responsible approach to China policy, it did, in fact, retain many of the Trump-era tariffs on imports. This trade policy has become closely tied to domestic voter perceptions in the US regarding the protection of American manufacturing jobs—even though a significant portion of the long-term job decline in traditional US industries like steel has been attributable as much to factory automation and production changes as to global competition and offshoring. Trump has commended Chinese President Xi Jinping as both “brilliant” and “dangerous” and a highly effective leader who governs 1.4 billion people with an “iron fist”—part of what opponents described as Trump’s admiration for “dictators.” The former president appears likely to diverge from the Biden administration’s strategy of fostering stronger US security partnerships with other regional nations in an attempt to contain China. The US has continued military assistance for self-governing Taiwan, which China considers a breakaway province destined to be under Beijing’s control. Trump stated in October that if he were to return to the White House, he would not need to employ military force to prevent a Chinese blockade of Taiwan because President Xi knew he was “[expletive] crazy,” and he would impose crippling tariffs on Chinese imports if such an event occurred.