How did Trump's foreign policy approach differ from his predecessors?
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s post-2024 foreign policy departs from recent post‑1945 U.S. practice by combining blunt “America First” transactionalism, a willingness to wield force and leverage aggressively, and an unpredictable mix of multilayered engagement and unilateral action — a pattern observers call both revolutionary and coherent depending on viewpoint [1] [2] [3]. Polling and public reactions are mixed: Americans gave many early moves negative or mixed reviews in spring 2025, and analysts note his second term has alternated between “militarism and peacemaking” while undercutting some multilateral norms [4] [5] [6].
1. A break with post‑war multilateralism — blunt transactionalism versus alliance stewardship
Commentators say Trump has moved away from the post‑1945 model of steady alliance‑building and institution strengthening, pressing allies with threats and demands rather than long‑term reassurance; The Atlantic and Carnegie characterize this as an “America First” worldview that forces allies to accommodate U.S. power or pay up, which upends assumptions that alliances are enduring bargains rather than transactional bargains [1] [2]. Supporters and some conservative analysts argue this remakes burdensharing in America’s favor — e.g., pushing Europeans to spend more on defense — while critics call it destabilizing to the global order that predecessors sustained [7] [3].
2. More forceful use of power — “peace through strength” and targeted strikes
Multiple analysts and think tanks frame the administration as emphasizing a muscular, advantage‑seeking posture: AEI and Foreign Affairs describe a “Trump Doctrine” or a return to “peace through strength,” including larger defense budgets, rotational deployments to deter rivals, and authorization of kinetic strikes [3] [8]. At the same time, observers note Trump’s mix of force and diplomacy can be unpredictable: the administration has alternated between military actions (e.g., strikes) and brokering deals, a pattern described as both aggressive and occasionally peacemaking [4] [9].
3. Unpredictability and volatility as strategic features — or liabilities
Reporters and analysts stress that unpredictability is a defining trait. The New York Times and Politico describe a capricious streak and an ability to “wreck” existing arrangements even while claiming peacemaking wins; RAND and Stimson point out that his policies can be hard to pin down because they combine abandonment of some multilateral practices with sustained U.S. security engagement [10] [7] [6] [11]. Some scholars see coherent aims — reshaping relationships to maximize American advantage — while others see revolutionary upheaval that undermines institutions [3] [2].
4. Economic nationalism and selective multilateralism — tariffs, onshoring, and leverage
Trump’s foreign policy revives trade warfare and economic leverage as tools of statecraft: analysts note renewed tariffs, onshoring industrial policy, and use of economic threats to reshape relations with China and trade partners, continuing themes from his earlier term [3] [12] [13]. Proponents argue these measures correct asymmetries in past agreements; critics warn they risk economic blowback and fracture cooperation on other security challenges [3] [13].
5. Public opinion and domestic political tensions shape foreign choices
Pew polling from spring 2025 found many Americans view early foreign policy moves mixed or negatively — e.g., doubts about balance on Russia‑Ukraine and cuts to USAID — indicating domestic skepticism even as the administration pursues high‑profile deals [5]. Axios and other outlets report that some domestic MAGA figures have criticized certain actions (like strikes or foreign aid), showing internal conservative tensions about whether transactional engagement aligns with “America First” instincts [14].
6. Competing expert interpretations — “coherent doctrine” vs. “revolutionary rupture”
There is no consensus in the reporting: AEI and some Foreign Affairs contributors describe a distinct, coherent doctrine that uses U.S. power more energetically than predecessors to secure advantage [3] [8]. By contrast, Carnegie and The Guardian warn the administration’s pace and scope constitute a revolution against the established liberal order and a shedding of moral leadership norms that earlier presidents at least rhetorically upheld [2] [15]. Both camps, however, acknowledge continuity in certain tools (sanctions, force, leverage) even as the goals and tone differ [6] [3].
Limitations and takeaways: available sources do not offer a single unified academic doctrine universally agreed on; instead they provide competing frames — transactional “America First” realism, an aggressive “peace through strength” posture, and a disruptive revolution in U.S. global engagement — each supported by concrete actions and contested by experts and public opinion [1] [3] [2] [5].