What foreign policy actions under Trump are viewed as successes or setbacks by experts?
Executive summary
Experts credit the Trump administration for several high-profile diplomatic and military outcomes — notably brokering ceasefires (Gaza and other regional disputes) and winning NATO agreement to a 5% GDP defense pledge at The Hague — while critics point to setbacks including damaged alliances, a repudiation of the post‑Cold War liberal order, and incoherence in strategy that alarms European partners [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Diplomatic wins: “Peacemaker” or transactional dealmaker?
Supporters say Trump racked up tangible peacemaking wins: a Gaza ceasefire that eluded his predecessor and a string of mediated accords from India–Pakistan to Armenia–Azerbaijan, Rwanda–DRC and Southeast Asian border disputes, which proponents present as proof his unconventional, deal‑first diplomacy can deliver results [1] [5]. Foreign Affairs argues these brokered outcomes and the administration’s readiness to deploy outsiders and pressure parties produced concrete pauses in fighting, portraying this as an efficacy that traditional diplomacy had failed to achieve [5] [1].
2. Military posture and force: bigger budget, sharper edges
The administration has pushed a muscular defense posture: pressuring NATO to shoulder more costs — culminating in the Hague pledge for allies to reach 5% of GDP on defense by 2035 — and pursuing expanded military investment in AI, shipbuilding and hypersonics in a proposed trillion‑dollar security buildout [2] [5]. Analysts at War on the Rocks and AEI read this as a decisive shift toward “peace through strength” and a deliberate effort to rebuild U.S. hard power for great‑power competition [6] [7].
3. Policy resets that experts call “a rupture” with allies
Multiple outlets warn the 2025 National Security Strategy recasts U.S. aims away from alliance‑based, liberal‑order leadership toward a narrower “core interests” frame that openly courts far‑right European parties and seeks to “cultivate resistance” inside Europe — a stance many Europeans saw as an abandonment of the post‑war transatlantic bargain and a provocation to long‑standing partners [4] [8] [9]. The Economist and Foreign Policy describe the document as bewildering to allies and scathing about the U.S.’s prior role, with critics calling it incoherent and corrosive to trust [3] [8].
4. Geoeconomic tools and trade: tariffs, pressure, and domestic politics
Trump’s trade and tariff campaigns — described in public reporting as a sweeping overturning of decades of free‑trade policy — have divided expert opinion: some see tariffs and “America‑First” economic levers as leverage to secure deals; others warn they risk alienating partners and harming U.S. businesses and allies’ willingness to cooperate on security [10] [5]. Pew polling shows Americans give mixed or negative reviews to early moves like leaving WHO and cutting USAID programs, indicating domestic unease about the costs and benefits of the economic realignment [11].
5. Latin America and the Western Hemisphere: assertive moves, contested means
The administration has prioritized the Western Hemisphere, treating Venezuelan policy and cartel designations as security imperatives — including designating drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations to unlock broader authorities and authorizing targeted deployments — a step analysts see as both bold and legally/strategically contentious [12] [4]. Forbes and Lawfare note the NSS explicitly elevates hemispheric dominance and migration control as central goals, which supporters frame as restoring U.S. influence while critics view as an overreach with humanitarian and diplomatic costs [13] [4].
6. Middle East strategy: hands‑on, transactional, and controversial
Trump’s June–July 2025 Middle East engagements — from a high‑profile Gulf tour to support for Israel and pragmatic dealings with regional leaders — produced some short‑term gains but prompted criticism that the U.S. has accepted autocratic actors “as they are” and deprioritized democratic promotion. Coverage in Foreign Policy and MEI calls the approach unilateral and transactional, producing tactical wins without durable strategic stability [9] [14].
7. Expert disagreement and the limits of available reporting
Scholars and commentators sharply disagree: some (AEI, Foreign Affairs) argue Trump’s approach is a coherent doctrine that rebuilds American power; others (The Economist, Foreign Policy, Time) call it incoherent, alienating allies and undermining the liberal order [7] [5] [3] [15]. Available sources do not mention long‑term outcomes beyond 2025; assessments hinge on short‑term deals, budget proposals and the new NSS rather than proven, durable shifts in global alignment [6] [4].
8. Bottom line for readers: judged by results and trust
Experts measure success both by immediate outcomes (ceasefires, agreements, spending pledges) and by sustained alliances and norms; on the first metric Trump has several headline wins, on the second many analysts warn of serious setbacks — damaged credibility in Europe, an explicit reshaping of U.S. aims away from the liberal order, and domestic polarization about the costs of his approach [1] [2] [3] [11].