Are we entering an era of changing American policies?
Trump often uses combative, assertive language when signaling his interests in policy and alliances. His many executive orders also reflects his willingness to push boundaries and test the resilience of U.S. governmental institutions. He speaks bluntly and then moves quickly, forcing legislative or judicial branches to catch up.For instance by appointing or advocating for a Secretary of Defense who aligns firmly with his worldview, one that is transactional, nationalistic, and resistant to traditional alliances, Trump secures short-term loyalty but also positions himself to influence large-scale national security decisions that might otherwise face internal pushback from the Pentagon’s career officials.
Considering Trump’s rhetoric on China and his broader foreign policy statements, the notion that China might eventually move on Taiwan under his watch (with tacit or explicit U.S. acceptance) appears less outlandish than it would under a more traditional administration. Over the years, Trump has oscillated between confrontational language toward Beijing and proclamations of respect for Chinese leadership, using trade and economic leverage as the most visible instruments of U.S. power. If he believes that securing a grand bargain would benefit American interests, either economically or geopolitically, he probably will overlook China’s actions against Taiwan in exchange for concessions or perceived gains elsewhere. In that sense, the deal-making philosophy he favors could transform into a transactional acceptance of Beijing’s consolidation of its “One China” policy, with enormous consequences for regional stability. While conceding Taiwan would be an extraordinary departure from long-standing U.S. commitments, it would fit into an isolationist or “America First” framework, where alliances and diplomatic commitments come second to strategic advantage.
Another domain where Trump’s language and actions offer clues to potential outcomes is Eastern Europe, particularly Ukraine. During his first term, he alternated between stating support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and suggesting warmer ties with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. These mixed messages reflected a strange balancing act: praising strong leaders while also affirming established U.S. policy supporting Ukrainian territorial integrity. The constant swirl of controversies involving U.S. aid to Ukraine demonstrates Trump’s underlying ambivalence or even skepticism about America’s commitment there.
Installing loyal leaders throughout the national security apparatus—he will likely choose to embrace a negotiated settlement that partitions Ukraine. This would allow him to claim he has ended a seemingly endless war and freeing the United States to shift focus to matters he deems of higher national priority. Some label this as a betrayal of U.S. allies and a green light for Russian expansionism while others calls it a bold move to reduce global tensions and a refocus on real threats.
His open musings about purchasing Greenland from Denmark has been dismissed as impulsive chatter, but from a strategic standpoint, Greenland’s location and its untapped resources hold significant appeal.
Now in a second term, armed with a more compliant Cabinet he continues to double down on that idea. The probability of Denmark conceding Greenland and ongoing about control of the island reflects Trump’s broader impulses, to test extraordinary ideas and see what might shake loose in negotiations. His endgame, if one can generalize, seems rooted in the pursuit of high-profile achievements that redefine U.S. power in tangible, measurable ways (land acquisition, trade surplus, or visible military wins) rather than the abstract maintenance of the liberal international order.
Tying in with that, the speculation about gaining control over the Panama Canal or reasserting a tighter grip there also plays into a vision of strengthening U.S. strategic outposts. Trump’s worldview is heavily influenced by the logic of zero-sum competition: if a global chokepoint or resource can be brought under direct American oversight, that equates to winning. In Trump’s calculus existing institutions and relationships are to be recalibrated or replaced if they do not yield immediate benefits. If the Department of Defense is aligned with him, or at least not disposed to block such maneuvers, the possibility of more aggressive action to secure strategic positions—like the Panama Canal—cannot be dismissed outright. If America pursues transactional, and combative foreign policy raises deep implications for the existing world order.
Throughout the post-World War II era which we now seem to leave behind, the United States often balanced national interests with a stated commitment to alliances and the rule of law. This ethos set the United States apart from purely self-interested powers. If a Trump-influenced U.S. abandons that stance and unapologetically acts out of near-term, narrow self-interest, global politics might tilt toward a more chaotic, multipolar system. Nations could drift from established alliances, forging deals based on immediate gains rather than shared values. Smaller countries will be forced to choose sides or navigate between regional powers like the U.S., China, and Russia, each asserting spheres of influence. The ripple effects on trade and collective security will be significant, as international norms come under pressure to bend to the will of stronger powers.
During and post WW II, America’s industrial and military capacities were stirred to action and the effect was decisive. In an interconnected 21st century, an American awakening in the sense of a resurgent, forceful nationalism can become a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the U.S. might deploy its immense resources to assert its interests globally, reconfiguring regional balances in ways that either deter rivals or spark escalations. On the other hand, it risks eroding the soft-power capital accumulated over decades, as well as triggering reciprocal nationalist backlashes. Rather than forging a more stable global hierarchy, such a turn may exacerbate tensions, set off arms races, and inspire new alignments as nations seek safety from an unpredictable superpower.
The world is likely entering a period of uncertainty and change. China’s interest in Taiwan, Russia’s influence in Ukraine, and potential U.S. aims regarding Greenland or the Panama Canal illustrates just how high the stakes are.