Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
Donald Trump’s second term as U.S. president is expected to continue the unpredictability and transactional nature that defined his first term. This approach, characterized by short-term, often self-serving decisions rather than long-term strategic planning, is likely to be intensified by the changing dynamics within his administration and the global environment. With more extreme factions of his political career gaining influence, particularly through think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. Trump’s foreign policy is set to be shaped by loyalty over competence, leading to a chaotic and unpredictable transition process. Trump’s first term was defined by an approach that could be called “transactional foreign policy.” Rather than pursuing policies rooted in traditional alliances or diplomatic norms, Trump often made decisions based on personal or national gain with little regard for long-term strategy or multilateral cooperation. For example, he pulled the U.S. out of international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, viewing these as costly or disadvantageous for American interests. Trump also favoured direct negotiations with adversaries, particularly North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, while sidelining traditional diplomatic channels and alliances. In his second term, this transactional approach is expected to continue but with more extreme figures taking charge within his administration. As the president’s focus on loyalty over competence grows, traditional checks like security clearances and FBI background checks could be bypassed, leading to the appointment of fringe figures to key positions. These appointments may exacerbate the chaotic nature of the administration, with ideological factions pushing for radical changes to the U.S. national security apparatus, including efforts to dismantle or reform institutions perceived as part of the “deep state.” The transition process into a second term is anticipated to be disorganized, with Trump’s reliance on conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation to fill policy gaps. These outside groups, while influential, may push for more ideologically rigid policies that may not align with practical diplomatic realities. This kind of “magical realism” , an overly optimistic view of U.S. influence and power could be a hindrance to effectively addressing the complex and dangerous international challenges facing the U.S. in 2025 and beyond. Trump’s second term would come at a time when the global geopolitical environment is much more challenging than it was in his first. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought the U.S. into a protracted proxy conflict in Europe, while China’s increasing assertiveness in the Pacific, especially regarding Taiwan, presents another looming crisis. Trump’s historical tendency to downplay the threat posed by these nations, especially Russia has led to concerns that he may further weaken U.S. alliances, particularly NATO. Trump’s rhetoric, often catastrophic and rooted in the belief that the U.S. is losing in international affairs, could continue to portray global dynamics in terms of competition rather than cooperation. However, his actual foreign policy could lack the strategic coherence needed to confront these challenges effectively. His inclination to favor leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin may lead to softer policies on Moscow, including potential concessions in Ukraine, which would damage NATO and Europe’s security structure. At the same time, Trump’s approach to China is likely to remain characterized by bluster and tough rhetoric without a consistent strategy for confronting Beijing’s growing influence, particularly regarding Taiwan. Trump’s lack of diplomatic patience and impulsive decision-making could further complicate U.S. efforts to effectively counter these adversaries. His promises during the campaign to reduce U.S. military involvement abroad may clash with the reality of military requirements, particularly in the Pacific and Europe. While his isolationist rhetoric resonates with parts of the base that the need for military engagement in key regions could lead to mixed and confused outcomes, exacerbated by internal power struggles within his administration. The unpredictability of Trump’s first term left U.S. allies wary of his commitment to traditional partnerships, including NATO, the European Union and key Asian allies like Japan and South Korea. In a second term, these nations may adopt more pragmatic approaches to dealing with Trump. With little expectation of consistent policy or long-term commitments, countries will likely seek to flatter and appease Trump in order to secure favourable terms on trade, defense and diplomacy. This transactional diplomacy could result in short-term agreements that benefit the U.S., but may lack the depth or stability necessary for long-term cooperation. For instance, Trump might push for increased defense spending from NATO allies or for trade deals that favor the U.S., but without building the kind of enduring relationships that foster true diplomatic cooperation. As allies grow more accustomed to Trump’s unpredictability, they may become less willing to make significant compromises, resulting in shallow or brittle partnerships. One of the defining features of Trump’s first term was the chaos within his administration and this is expected to be even more pronounced in a second term. Power struggles between various factions loyal to Trump, more traditional conservatives and ideologically extreme figures could create an environment where competing interests, rather than strategic coherence drive foreign policy decisions. In this environment, the pursuit of ideological purity might lead to the marginalization of professional diplomats and national security experts, who are seen as part of the “deep state.” This would further intensify the unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy, as key decisions are made by individuals with little experience or regard for the complexities of international relations.
