How did Trump's second-term policies affect relations with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea?
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s second-term National Security Strategy reoriented U.S. policy toward “America First,” emphasizing tariffs and economic nationalism, burden‑shifting to allies, deterrence of China over Taiwan, and a narrowed scope of U.S. global responsibilities [1] [2] [3]. The administration sharply reduced direct support for Ukraine while prioritizing hemispheric control and migration as security issues — moves that analysts say have pushed Europe to shoulder the costs of opposing Russia [4] [5].
1. China: deterrence over engagement, but through economic and military postures
The 2025 NSS frames China as a foremost strategic competitor and directs policies to deter a conflict over Taiwan largely “via military might and existing partnerships,” while simultaneously embracing aggressive economic tools such as tariffs and an industrial‑dominance push that reshape U.S.–China competition beyond traditional diplomacy [3] [2] [6]. Analysts note the strategy stresses avoiding direct war through stronger regional deterrence while pursuing access to critical minerals and technological dominance — a combination that tightens economic confrontation even as it promises military readiness [3] [7] [6].
2. Russia: de‑emphasis of U.S. direct support for Ukraine and encouragement of European burden‑bearing
Trump’s second term has seen U.S. support for Ukraine “ground to a halt” according to Foreign Policy, and the new strategy explicitly shifts burden‑sharing to European allies — effectively handing Europe principal responsibility for sanctions, frozen assets and military aid to counter Russia [4]. The administration’s posture and diplomatic overtures toward negotiation — including meetings where U.S. delegations engaged Russia on frameworks for peace — have prompted critics to characterize parts of the administration’s approach as conciliatory or transactional toward Moscow [8] [4].
3. Iran: lesser emphasis and a narrower U.S. role in the Middle East
The NSS and related reporting show the administration narrowed America’s purpose abroad, saying the U.S. role will be less dominated by the Middle East and more focused on core national interests, while the White House portrays the second term as pivoting away from open-ended commitments [1] [9]. Available sources do not detail specific punitive Iran policy measures enacted in 2025, but they make clear the overall doctrine deprioritizes long‑running Middle East engagement in favor of hemispheric and economic priorities [1] [9].
4. North Korea: not prominent in the new blueprint
The 2025 NSS emphasizes deterrence and “peace through strength” in regions of immediate economic and alliance interest, and reporting highlights Asia and Taiwan in particular [3] [1]. Available sources do not mention concrete second‑term North Korea policy changes, negotiations, or escalatory incidents; therefore specifics on how Pyongyang was handled are not found in current reporting.
5. Trade, tariffs and the global fallout: economic tools as foreign policy
The administration’s aggressive tariff program—described in reporting as a massive rise in applied U.S. tariff rates in early 2025 and a withdrawal from multilateral tax pillars—has become a central instrument of foreign policy and economic competition with rivals, reshaping bilateral ties including with China [2]. Commentators flag that replacing multilateral economic engagement with high tariffs and “reciprocal tariff” ideas increases friction with allies and adversaries alike [2] [6].
6. Allies and institutions: burden‑shifting, ideological alignment, and transatlantic strain
The strategy moves from asking allies to do more toward “burden‑shifting,” including pressing NATO to spend far more on defense and criticizing European institutions, language that reviewers say aligns with nationalist European forces and risks alienating traditional partners [6] [10]. Analysts at Foreign Policy and Lawfare argue Europe now carries the heavier weight against Russia while the U.S. reframes alliances around transactional, ideological and economic terms [4] [1].
7. Competing interpretations and hidden agendas
Supporters frame the NSS and policies as necessary realism: defending core national interests, ending “era of mass migration,” and forcing allies to pay their share [1] [9]. Critics argue the agenda narrows American purpose, enables rivals by downgrading commitments (especially to Ukraine), and embeds ideological aims (e.g., confronting EU “civilizational erasure”) into strategic planning — suggesting a political project that blends foreign policy with domestic culture‑war goals [10] [5].
8. Limitations and what’s not in the reporting
Open questions remain: the sources do not provide a comprehensive, incident‑by‑incident ledger of second‑term interactions with Iran or detailed North Korean diplomacy, and they differ on whether rhetoric translated into durable policy shifts versus episodic acts (available sources do not mention specific North Korea measures; [3]; [11]4). Our synthesis relies on the NSS and contemporary analysis; granular operational outcomes beyond what those pieces describe are not covered in the provided reporting.
Conclusion: Trump’s second‑term foreign policy recasts competition with China as combined military and economic deterrence, reduces U.S. frontline support for Ukraine while pushing Europe to lead against Russia, downgrades broad Middle East engagement, and elevates tariffs and hemispheric control as instruments of statecraft — a consequential reordering whose long‑term effects remain contested among analysts cited here [3] [4] [2] [1].