It is barely 100 days into US President Donald Trump’s second term, but much is already clear. Trump 2.0 is starkly different: more confident and surrounded by a team determined to implement a far more sweeping agenda. Those staffing the administration — amplifiers more than restrainers, enablers more than guardrails — spent the past four years preparing for this moment.
Trump 2.0 is an activist, imperial presidency, at home and abroad. He seems to be everywhere, dominating public space and private conversations alike in much of the world.
The contrast with his predecessor, former US president Joe Biden, could not be starker.
Illustration: Mountain People
The administration’s principal policy goal thus far has been to make good on Trump’s campaign pledge to secure the US’ southern border, but import tariffs — an across-the-board 10 percent baseline levy, plus additional country-specific tariffs, reaching 145 percent in China’s case — have become the defining initiative of his presidency.
Foreign policy is also substantially changed. The US has shifted from being a steadfast supporter of Ukraine to tilting decidedly in Russia’s favor. The shift appears to be motivated by a clear dislike for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and an embrace of Russian President Vladimir Putin for reasons unknown.
Trump, who boasted during his campaign that all he needed was a day to end the war, which he regularly blames on Biden and Zelenskiy, is now talking about walking away from diplomacy to end the war entirely. He is finding it difficult to make good on his campaign promise, in no small part because his pro-Russia policy fails to give Putin any incentive to compromise or Zelenskiy the confidence to do so. The agreement to establish a US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund should help, but to achieve a cessation of hostilities much more will need to be done to assist Ukraine.
Europe and the US’ other traditional allies receive no special treatment, either. This is certainly the case with tariffs, which tellingly spared Russia, but severely hit Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. US Vice President J.D. Vance traveled to Munich, Germany, in February to ignite a cultural clash with Europeans, while US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth openly raised doubts about the US commitment to Europe at NATO headquarters. This has spurred European preparations to support Ukraine if US assistance wanes and to achieve strategic self-sufficiency more broadly.
In the Middle East, the administration launched what could well prove to be a promising negotiation with Iran. The stage was set by Israeli military action against Iran and its proxies, the fall of the regime of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and Iran’s worsening economy, all of which makes backing away from its nuclear program to avoid military attack and secure sanctions relief particularly attractive. If the Trump administration is willing to allow Iran limited uranium enrichment — a concession that might be required to secure a deal — it can expect criticism from some in the US and Israel, but Trump is strong enough to weather the pushback if it comes.
Otherwise, the Trump administration has essentially given Israel’s government a free hand to do what it wants in Gaza and the West Bank. It seems to have lost interest in extending the Hamas-Israel ceasefire, as this would put it at odds with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who appears to prioritize his coalition’s survival, through continuing military operations in Gaza, over freeing the remaining hostages.
Gone is pressure on Israel to rein in its military operations or to even allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, which is about two months into a full blockade. Trump’s own proposal for Gaza, to empty it of its 2 million Palestinian inhabitants and to rebuild a new Riviera, went nowhere, but seems to have emboldened the Israeli government to depopulate, occupy and potentially settle large swaths of the enclave.
In the West Bank, the Trump administration rescinded Biden’s sanctions on settlers who commit acts of violence against Palestinians and/or their property. There is no call on Israel to refrain from settlement activity or any penalty for not doing so. Indeed, this is the first US administration in modern memory not to push Israelis and Palestinians to narrow their differences. What interest there is in reconciliation is focused almost exclusively on facilitating diplomatic normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, a prospect set back by Israel’s continued use of armed force in Gaza and rejection of any political agenda to address Palestinian aspirations.
The most unexpected dimension of US foreign policy, one neither previewed in Trump’s first term nor during the campaign, has been the focus on the western hemisphere. Canada and Mexico were singled out for early tariffs over alleged failures to control their borders. There were also heavy-handed calls to assert US sovereignty over the Panama Canal, Greenland and Canada. More than anything else, these goals have triggered an anti-American backlash — even flipping the outcome of Canada’s recent federal election.
There is also what might be described as an amoral slant to US foreign policy. The Trump administration has all but ignored the weakening of democracy in countries such as Turkey and Israel, and has slashed support for democracy promotion efforts around the world.
The biggest foreign-policy uncertainty remains China. On one hand, Trump granted TikTok waivers that allowed it to remain on Americans’ phones, despite uncertainty about whether he has the authority to do so. He continues to speak highly of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and expresses confidence that the US and China will reach a deal.
However, the massive tariffs he has levied on China mean that the US and Chinese economies will increasingly separate, if not actually decouple. Whether the tariffs are an attempt to gain bargaining leverage or are ends in themselves remain perhaps the biggest question in Sino-US relations.
Overall, Trump 2.0’s foreign policy is more unilateralist than isolationist. This will remain the case. Less clear is the extent to which Trump will move to reduce tariffs, rethink his pro-Russian stance on Ukraine, and press Israel to modify its approach to Gaza and the West Bank — policies that could revive US and global economic growth, and bring peace to two regions that have known little of it. Much would depend on the choices of a man who, for better or worse, is already among the most consequential of US presidents.
Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, is a senior counselor at Centerview Partners, Distinguished University Scholar at New York University and the author of the weekly Substack newsletter Home & Away.
Copright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
RSS