How did Trump influence foreign policy and international relations in 2025?
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s 2025 actions reshaped alliances, trade and regional diplomacy through tariffs and bilateral deals while alternating between coercion and negotiated settlements — for example, a November 2025 China trade pact cut 10 percentage points from certain fentanyl-related tariffs and froze reciprocal tariffs until November 2026 [1], and the administration announced a 20‑point Gaza peace plan and began authorizing arms shipments to Ukraine under a NATO mechanism [2]. Observers describe a coherent “Trump doctrine” of aggressive bargaining and “peace through strength,” but critics say the approach has increased global uncertainty, eroded trust with allies, and produced domestic and legal pushback [3] [4] [5].
1. A transactional diplomacy: tariffs, one‑on‑one deals, and trade frameworks
The administration pursued a transactional, bilateral model, using tariffs and threat of abandonment to extract concessions. In November 2025 the White House announced it would remove 10 percentage points from cumulative tariffs aimed at China related to fentanyl flows and suspend certain retaliatory measures until November 2026 — a negotiated rollback born of direct leader engagement [1]. At the same time the administration secured multiple trade‑framework agreements with countries including Switzerland and several Latin American states, signaling a pivot away from multilateralism toward bespoke bilateral bargains [6] [7].
2. Coercion and cajoling: allies pushed to pay and rearm
Trump’s diplomacy leveraged threats to security commitments to force allied burden‑shifting. Analysts and some officials celebrate the tangible result of higher European defense spending and NATO operational changes, which supporters frame as “peace through strength” and rebalancing of the transatlantic bargain [3]. Critics warn that the same “tough love” approach risks eroding the soft power that sustains alliances and undermines long‑term cooperation [8] [9].
3. Middle East activism: a 20‑point Gaza plan and diffused leverage
The president combined hard military action with bold peacemaking. The administration unveiled a 20‑point plan for Gaza and pressed Israeli leadership to accept its terms, a move described by Carnegie as an unprecedented use of U.S. leverage over Israel [2] [10]. Observers differ: some see a potential legacy‑making regional architecture built on U.S. mediation and Saudi ties [11], while others argue the policy mixes militarism and diplomacy incoherently and has damaged prospects for incremental diplomacy [12] [13].
4. Russia and Ukraine: aid restructured, more conditional posture
The administration restructured engagement in Ukraine by ending open, open‑ended aid and channeling assistance through NATO mechanisms that let allies buy U.S. arms for Ukraine — approving initial PURL shipments in September 2025 [2]. Commentators read this as a shift from open subsidy toward conditionalized support that pressures partners to shoulder more burden and to bargain over resource‑sharing arrangements tied to U.S. assistance [14] [3].
5. U.S.–China relations: phone diplomacy with mixed readouts
High‑level contacts continued even as frictions persisted. A November phone call with Xi Jinping produced public assurances of “extremely strong” relations from Trump and a White House fact sheet on reciprocal tariff adjustments and export‑control suspensions, yet Chinese readouts emphasized Taiwan — highlighting divergent framings that leave substantive gaps unresolved [15] [1]. Academics and think tanks debate whether this represents a durable détente or episodic dealmaking without systemic settlement [16] [17].
6. Domestic politics, legal pushback and global perceptions
The administration’s foreign‑policy style — centralized, highly personal and sometimes theatrical — has provoked legal challenges at home and prompted allies and partners to adapt to unpredictability, according to multiple analyses [18] [4] [5]. Polling and public opinion pieces indicate substantial domestic dissatisfaction with overall foreign‑policy performance even where the administration scores tactical wins [19] [12].
7. Competing narratives and the core debate
Proponents argue Trump is recalibrating U.S. foreign policy to be more realist and value‑neutral, extracting material concessions and forcing allies to act [8] [3]. Opponents contend the same tactics increase existential risk, undercut international norms, and create long‑term instability that outweighs short‑term gains [4] [17]. Available sources do not mention a settled scholarly consensus; debate centers on whether gains in defense spending and bilateral deals offset losses in trust and multilateral cohesion [9] [8].
Limitations: this summary synthesizes contemporary reporting and analysis through November 2025; it relies on media, think‑tank and official fact sheets in the provided set and does not attempt to adjudicate disputed factual claims beyond those sources [1] [2] [4].