What foreign policy moves did Trump make in 2025 and their global impact?
Executive summary
In 2025 the Trump administration recast U.S. foreign policy around a new National Security Strategy (NSS) that prioritizes the Western Hemisphere, elevates mass migration as a top threat, and advocates a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine; the NSS and related actions—tariffs, aid shifts, and military reorientation—have already prompted economic dislocation and diplomatic unease in Europe and Asia [1] [2] [3]. Major concrete moves include broad tariff campaigns with measurable drops in exports and forecasts of slower global growth, targeted aid and defense shifts toward Latin America (including $336m to the Philippines), and active outreach to Russia and Belarus that allies view as conciliatory to Moscow [4] [5] [2].
1. A new playbook: NSS rewrites priorities and frames threats
The administration released a 2025 National Security Strategy that narrows U.S. aims to “core national interests,” elevates migration above terrorism, calls for burden‑shifting to allies, and proposes a “Trump Corollary” to reassert U.S. primacy in the Americas—an explicit doctrinal pivot away from the post‑Cold War order [1] [6] [3].
2. Western Hemisphere first: aid, diplomacy and a Monroe revival
The NSS and related policy documents place Latin America at the top of U.S. priorities and direct resources and diplomatic focus there. Officials have exempted partners such as the Philippines from aid freezes and released funds for military modernization, and the strategy frames the hemisphere as a zone where Washington will reassert “preeminence” and push back on other powers’ influence [5] [2] [1].
3. Russia outreach and Ukraine diplomacy: rapprochement vs. alarm
The administration moved toward realignment with Russia: envoys met in Moscow, and U.S. negotiators advanced a peace framework for the Russia‑Ukraine war that includes concessions to Moscow and language assigning some responsibility to Kyiv—steps that pleased the Kremlin and alarmed many European and Ukrainian officials [7] [5] [2].
4. Hard economic measures: tariffs that ripple globally
The administration’s aggressive tariff program—marketed as “America First” trade policy—has produced sharp trade disruptions: export falls, higher prices, and academic projections of reduced growth for the U.S. and global economy. Think tanks and institutions estimate notable declines in output, currency movements and inflationary effects tied to those tariffs [4] [8] [9].
5. Burden‑shifting in NATO and Europe’s unease
At NATO and other forums the U.S. pushed hard for larger European defense spending (a headline pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035), and the NSS’s sparse engagement with traditional European priorities has led commentators to warn Europe is being nudged toward strategic self‑reliance or drift—responses range from compliance on defense spending to fear of strategic isolation [10] [11] [2].
6. Development, climate and institutional retrenchment
Observers document an early pattern of aid freezes and bureaucratic reorganization that threaten international development programs and climate commitments; the NSS explicitly reduces the priority of long‑running Middle East and global multilateral engagements, and critics say the administration is de‑emphasizing collective international action in favor of sovereignty‑first prescriptions [12] [1].
7. Domestic politics driving foreign policy—and global reactions
Policy choices tie tightly to domestic politics: migration rhetoric and trade protectionism intersect with executive orders and benefit cuts that ripple outward. Global business leaders exhibit mixed reactions—some bullish on U.S. market opportunity, others warning of higher costs and uncertainty—while allied governments and analysts publicly register concern about unpredictable U.S. moves [13] [14] [15].
8. Short‑term impacts vs. long‑term uncertainty
Near‑term effects are measurable—declines in exports, tariff‑driven inflationary pressure, and diplomatic strains—yet longer‑term outcomes remain uncertain because the administration’s document is both doctrinal and tactical, and Trump’s personal mercurial style makes implementation variable; analysts stress that surprise events or domestic politics could rapidly reshape these trajectories [4] [16].
Limitations and competing perspectives: reporting across outlets shows consensus on the NSS’s content and tariff impacts, but assessments diverge sharply on intent and efficacy. Supporters argue the policies restore American leverage and protect domestic interests [1] [13]; critics warn of erosion of alliances, economic damage, and empowerment of adversaries like Russia and China [11] [4]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, quantified tally of every 2025 foreign‑policy action by the administration.