Trump reelected

Introduction

When Donald Trump was first elected president of the United States in 2016, theorists and politically engaged observers alike speculated about the impact his “America First” agenda would have on US foreign policy and international multilateral arrangements. Fast forward eight years later, there are few doubts about Donald Trump’s dislike for multilateral cooperation. Multilateralism is understood as “an institutional form which coordinates relations among three or more states on the basis of ‘generalized’ principles of conduct” based on the value of reciprocity, equality and inclusion. Such principles are fundamentally at odds with both Trump’s political and personal convictions. Whereas realist perspectives highlight structural systemic shifts in explaining Donald Trump’s isolationist strategy and bilateral cooperation strategy, constructivists would rather insist on the importance of Donald Trump’s “hypertransactional”  zero-sum visions of the world and his personal incapacity to access emotions necessary for altruism, empathy and compromise. To understand what to expect in terms of multilateral cooperation from Donald Trump’s next presidential mandate, we will reflect on his first mandate and his election campaign.

 A multilateralist mindset?

The willingness to participate in multilateral arrangements and the value placed on these institutional forms of collective management depend not only on the potential to maximize individual gains and minimize losses but also on a moral commitment to the principles of collective decision-making.

Prerequisites for multilateral engagement

A robust, qualitative definition of multilateralism – contrary to a purely quantitative one – emphasizes the importance of social components as underpinnings for the creation, and, even more importantly, the functioning of multilateral negotiations. Reciprocity, meaning “the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefits” may be compatible with Donald Trump’s transactional outlook on politics but also reveals potential incompatibilities with zero-sum conceptions of gains. His nearly obsessive focus on relative gains, even in cases with longstanding strategic partners like South Korea, is a case in point.

Equality, defined as being equal in rights, status, advantages relies on a minimalist egalitarian conception of individuals and states and a common vision of their equal moral worth as legitimate participants in negotiations and decisions. This notion of equality requires a cosmopolitan outlook on international relations and the acceptance that laws should apply equally to all participating parties. Donald Trump has clearly shown, in words and deeds, a disregard for established rules and that breaking them when advantageous is positively evaluated as being smarter than others.

Inclusion involves not merely inviting participants to negotiations and debates but also actively engaging with them, which necessitates a certain tolerance for differences and willingness to avoid ostracizing states and groups.  While one could concede that Donald Trump’s commitment to engage in negotiations with even the most infamous authoritarian leaders is a form of integration, his willingness to engage with weaker or more moderate leaders on equal terms appears less pronounced.

Finally, multilateralism, in its social definition, has an important altruistic component in the sense that “multilateral negotiation encourages a type of ‘reasoned’ or ‘integrative’ negotiation in which one accepts to gain less in order to gain with others”. This kind of cooperation demands a relational and constructive emotional engagement – an area where Donald Trump encounters challenges. Helping “strangers”, making sacrifices for others is based on empathy and the feeling of positive relatedness.

A personalistic understanding of politics incompatible with multilateralism

The lack of interest in multilateral arrangements can be seen as consistent with traditional Republican isolationist positions. However, Republican stances have also historically depended on – and varied with – individual interpretations. Evaluating the potential impact of a second Trump presidency on multilateral arrangements via the analysis of the future President’s personality seems to be particularly legitimate for at least three reasons: First, there is a significant consolidation of MAGA (Make America Great Again) and Republican power in executive, legislative and judicial institutions, meaning there may be few checks on power. Second, even if there were to be opposition within Trump’s cabinet, he has proven to resist his advisors’  policy recommendations when they contradict his “gut feeling”. And lastly, mental health specialists have alerted to the narcissistic personality traits of Donald Trump, which have profound consequences on decision making and interpersonal and social interactions with others.

Trump’s various approaches to rejecting or disregarding multilateralism are in line with his individual view of the world in general and his personal needs. A prominent  trait frequently emphasized  in the political psychology literature is his inflated self-image. “Nobody knows more”, nobody is “smarter” or more “powerful” than him. There is no need for multilateral cooperation because Trump’s “powerful” leadership alone is enough to force others to the negotiation table and make them comply with the United States. Moreover, multilateralism in this sense, does not serve as an interesting tool in portraying greatness and superiority – on the contrary it diminishes the presidency to that of an ordinary citizen of international society. He also has trouble coming to terms with social rules and dynamics. Even relations with longstanding historical allies have become transactional. Trying to make South Korea pay for protection, threatening NATO partners by encouraging Putin to attack them in case they do not increase NATO financing, and calling the European Union  a “foe” of the United States are just some examples indicative of the ahistorical vision that the former and future president of the United States has of the world. Holding few profound political convictions, alliances are built rebuilt in terms of his emotional needs. Trump himself aligns more closely with the  “tough” camp, characterized by his admiration for authoritarian leaders or bullies. Rules and solidarity in this sense are seen to belong to the weak. Eat or be eaten is Trump’s motto. In political terms, this perspective suggests that if a country is unable to defend itself or develop economically, the responsibility is simply its own. His inability to empathize with others makes him insensitive to other peoples’ and governments’ interests in negotiations. On the one hand, he is insensitive to the material and especially the symbolic costs and constraints that weigh on other countries and their leaders. On the other hand, by humiliating others, he shows a certain sense of gratification in asserting his dominance over them. This combination makes him incapable of engaging in a profound way in international negotiations or recognizing the needs of others independent from his own emotional needs for self-confirmation. Finally, engaging in multilateral frameworks with an individual who disregards the existence of inconvenient problems is challenging. Trumps ego-defense-mechanisms turn facts and science into “fake news” and criticisms into conspiracies and witch-hunts.

America First and the Erosion of US Global Engagement

The “America First” doctrine, championed by US President Donald Trump, reflects his distinctive personal identity, style, political ethos and illustrates a perceived incompatibility between US national interests and multilateral engagement. His interpersonal, transactional approach is reproduced on the international scene. He has a profound distrust of any form of “global governance” and institutional institutions such as the UN are corrupt and represent the globalist agenda. As he once announced, “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism,” […] I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down.” Indeed, a US centered “cost-benefit bilateralism” has become the main feature of the Trump government.

America First as a Guiding Principle

The doctrine of “America First” operates on the principle that the United States, as a sovereign nation, should prioritize its own economic, security, and political goals over those of international coalitions that may dilute or compromise these objectives. It advocates policies formulated to bolster American economic strength, national security and sovereignty on the domestic and international fronts. Its overarching goal is to level the playing field for a superpower that has lost its luster and strategic economic advantages.

“America First” seeks to ensure that American citizens reap the direct economic and security benefits of renegotiating or reducing costly US commitments to international alliances and multilateral agreements. By prioritizing bilateral agreements, this approach seeks to maximize the US’ leverage in international negotiations to enable it to tailor each agreement to its own interests. This strategic pivot is reflective of a personal belief that the US can better protect its sovereignty, safeguard its economic or national security assets by engaging with other nations on a bilateral, transactional basis without being constrained by the larger considerations required in multilateral frameworks. As he asserted, « No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and our enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must start doing the same.”

Presenting himself as a ‘deal maker,’ Trump’s shift from multilateral to bilateral commitments during his first mandate did not yield more peaceful policies, nor did it secure clear advantages for the US over its allies or rivals. However, this approach further reflected Trump’s confidence in his capabilities as chief diplomat, as he sought to secure favorable outcomes, bypassing traditional, mid-level diplomatic expertise, even on complex issues, such as missile and nuclear proliferation.

In his 2017 inaugural address, President Trump declared, “From this day forward […], it’s going to be only America first. Every decision will be made to benefit American workers and American families.” This nationalistic stance inherently conflicts with the foundational principles of multilateralism, which relies on compromise, shared values, and mutual interdependence.

Strategic Disengagement from Key Multilateral Arrangements

The practical application of Trump’s “America First” policy materialized as a systematic withdrawal from multilateral arrangements he perceived as limiting US autonomy or economically burdensome. His administration pursued an unprecedented level of disengagement from key international agreements, institutions and significantly reduced the US diplomatic corps, signaling a shift in US foreign policy from collective responsibility to isolated self-interest.

In 2017, the Trump administration openly criticized and successfully reduced funding for UN Peacekeeping, later freezing contributions to the World Health Organization (WHO) during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) was cut by 80%, and soon afterward, all support to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) was terminated. Additionally, the US State Department faced significant budget cuts, staffing reductions, and operational constraints as part of a broader “America First” agenda. Proposed budgets in 2018 and 2019 sought to reduce funding for the State Department and USAID by 23%–31%, though Congress moderated some of these reductions.

A hiring freeze limited new appointments, leaving many crucial diplomatic positions vacant after 16.2% of civilian employees with over 25 years of experience departed. Program budgets for diplomatic and consular activities, as well as certain foreign aid and humanitarian initiatives, were also scaled back. This major policy shift emphasized reduced government spending and encouraged allied nations to increase their financial contributions. However, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General found that this freeze “was not guided by strategic goals.” Critics argued that these budget cuts weakened the US diplomatic corps, compromising its capacity to address complex international challenges.

Donald Trump’s administration also rapidly embarked on a series of deliberate withdrawals from several major international accords and institutions. In January 2017, the US exited the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was labeled by Trump as “a continuing rape of our country.” By June of the same year, he announced the US intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, citing the “draconian financial and economic burdens” it allegedly imposed on the US economy. This trend continued with additional withdrawals, including from UNESCO and the UN Migration Pact in December 2017, the United Nations Human Rights Council in June 2018, and the World Health Organization (WHO) in July 2021. This sweeping policy shift highlighted a strategic realignment, emphasizing bilateral agreements where US dominance could be more directly exercised. These actions revealed a pronounced skepticism toward multilateral constraints and a preference for frameworks that grant the US greater unilateral leverage but also created a significant void of US presence and leadership.

Further, the US’ withdrawals from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019, and the Open Skies Treaty in 2020 reduced military transparency and weakened Confidence and Security-Building Measures (CSBMs). Consequently, these actions significantly heightened mutual distrust and intensified rivalries on issues critical to US national security.

Frequent and unprecedented, yet accurate, criticism of NATO allies – arguing that the United States was shouldering a disproportionate share of the financial and operational responsibilities while other member states failed to meet their defense spending commitment of 2% of GDP – began to create divisions within the alliance. Trump asserted that many NATO allies were not paying their fair share and that the US was effectively subsidizing European security. He urged allies to increase their defense budgets, warning that the US might seek to “renegotiate” or even “break up NATO”  if allies failed to comply. This position generated heightened tensions within the alliance and raised concerns about US commitment to NATO’s collective defense, enshrined in Article 5. In 2024, Trump went further, stating that the US would not protect NATO countries from an attack if they are delinquent in their payments.

Key allies, including Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel, faced significant pressure and criticism, not only on defense contributions but also on issues like migration. In response, Merkel pledged to increase Germany’s military spending. Trump’s approach led to unease and uncertainty, sparking discussions across Europe about reducing dependence on the US for security and pursuing a more autonomous European defense capability. Merkel emphasized the need for greater European independence, stating, “Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands.” Trump’s position on NATO has not since been forgotten, as Macron stated just shortly after Trump’s 2024 election that “the days of Europe . . . relying on the US for security are over.”

Conclusion

A new Trump mandate would likely bring about an intensified focus on unilateralism and a continuation of the « America First » agenda that would further distance the US from multilateral commitments and longstanding alliances. This approach could see the return of significant US strategic disengagement from key international institutions and agreements to support an isolationist foreign policy that continues to prioritize US sovereignty and economic interests over collective responsibility. Trump’s preference for bilateral agreements and transactional relationships could also erode diplomatic channels and diminish US influence on important global issues and lead to heightened tensions with allies and rivals alike. Trump’s decision to negotiate directly with Vladimir Putin over Ukraine may see Ukraine excluded and could likely serve as yet another example of his transactional and ahistorical vision of international politics. By disengaging from key multilateral arrangements and acting against established collective norms such as the nuclear taboo, Donald Trump accelerates the destruction of the social fabric that has contributed to the construction of an international community.

The concrete impact of Donald Trump’s beliefs and personality on foreign policy will be dependent on a) the strength and influence of MAGA and the traditional Republican party in American political institutions; b) on Donald Trump’s capacity to “purge” the administration of civil servants and political advisors who play a critical role of guiding and supporting the president through decision making procedures; and c) the selection of political advisors and their respective interpersonal skills to influence a figure like Donald Trump. Without any major institutional checks, Trump could have carte blanche to implement his personalized style of politics.