Donald Trump’s re-election as the President of the United States of America (USA) after winning the November 5, 2024 elections has brought many uncertainties in the international arena. Trump, who challenged the conventional norms of the global system with his “America First” policy and shook traditional alliance relations during his first presidential term, is now considered by the international community as the harbinger of a major transformation in both the economic and political spheres. The international community’s expectations stem not only from Trump’s re-election to the presidency but also from the effects of the policies he implemented in his first term and the concern that the new promises he voiced in his election campaign will further reinforce these effects. A review of Trump’s actions during his first presidential term reveals a series of decisions that had far-reaching effects on international relations and domestic politics:
- He decided to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement called into question the US’s role as a global environmental leader and put international cooperation on environmental protection in jeopardy.
- He criticized the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and demanded European allies to increase their defense spending.
- In 2015, it unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran and decided to reimpose tough sanctions against Tehran. This decision caused new tensions in the Middle East.
- It launched a trade war against China and imposed high tariffs on that country.
- It gave great support to Israel. He signed the resolution declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. The international community, especially Middle Eastern countries, reacted strongly to Trump’s decision.
- He took a stance against global free trade agreements by withdrawing the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. He also criticized the World Trade Organization and demanded reform of this organization.
- He decided to withdraw his military presence in the Middle East. However, Trump’s decision caused tensions in his relations with allies such as Britain and France in Europe.
- He advocated the construction of a wall on the Mexican border and started to implement harsh anti-immigrant policies.
- He preferred unilateral actions rather than multilateral diplomatic approaches.
Trump’s campaign during the 2024 election process includes a series of promises based on the policies he implemented during his previous presidential term. In the eyes of the international community, these promises are interpreted as a continuation and deepening of Trump’s policies in his second presidential term. In his election propaganda, Trump stated that he could quickly end the Russian-Ukrainian War and the Israeli-Palestinian War, and argued that solving these two global crises was one of his primary goals. This promise reflects Trump’s view that his foreign policy approach is consistent with his predecessor and that conflicts should be resolved through more direct intervention. Trump also criticized NATO, arguing that the alliance does not fairly compensate its members for their defense spending, and emphasized that allies should pay their fair share. This approach is a reflection of Trump’s critical attitude towards multilateral security agreements and stands out as a policy proposal that corrects the imbalances in NATO’s current structure.
Another important promise in Trump’s election propaganda is the increase in tariffs. His promise to increase tariffs by 200 percent, especially in the automobile sector, reveals his goal of strengthening the protectionist approach in US trade policies. This is a parallel approach to Trump’s previous term when he advocated the need to reshape global trade. Another promise is to reintroduce the immigration policies he initiated during his first presidential term. In this context, Trump has promised to reintroduce strict policies to prevent illegal immigration, and during the election campaign, he argued that he planned to introduce comprehensive regulations to restrict immigration into the US. This attitude reinforces expectations that Trump will continue his harsh policies on domestic security and his anti-immigrant rhetoric. Trump’s promises for his second presidential term are an extension of the policies he outlined in the first term of his presidency and promise profound change and transformation at the global and domestic policy level. They reflect Trump’s strategic orientation to pursue a more isolationist and protectionist foreign policy, to be more selective in international alliances, and to take tough security measures in domestic policies.
The “America First” approach that Trump adopted during his first presidential term criticized the traditional leadership role of the United States in international crises and developed a perspective to redefine this role. With this policy, he rejects the notion that the United States should bear the bulk of the global security burden and calls on allied countries to assume more responsibility. With this approach, Trump has questioned the traditional mechanisms of cooperation in the transatlantic security structure and promoted a new power-sharing model. If Trump continues these policies in his second presidential term, his approach to the Ukraine Crisis could have a profound impact not only on the dynamics of the regional conflict but also on Europe’s security architecture and the balance of NATO’s functioning. Trump’s policies in this context have the potential to reshape US priorities in its relations with NATO, its obligations towards Europe’s defense capacity, and its leadership approach in international crisis management. In such a period, Trump’s leadership style is likely to lead to structural changes in the international system by redefining the US role in the transatlantic alliance.
Throughout his first presidential term, Donald Trump has frequently criticized the US interventionist policies in global conflicts. In this context, the US withdrawal plans from Afghanistan, limited military operations in Syria, and harsh criticism of NATO allies can be considered concrete examples of Washington’s efforts to lighten its global security burden. When this approach is evaluated in the context of the Russia-Ukraine War, a possible scenario is that Trump would reduce the direct leadership of the United States and demand that European countries take responsibility for the resolution of the conflict. Trump’s criticism of NATO allies, especially his insistence on insufficient defense spending, reinforces the idea that Europe should assume more financial and military obligations towards Ukraine. This raises the possibility that Trump may adopt a policy of limiting or completely cutting US aid to Ukraine during his presidency. Such a strategy would force European countries to take a stronger leadership position, which could turn the Ukraine Crisis into a regional showdown between Europe and Russia. Trump’s adoption of such a policy could create new tensions in transatlantic relations, while at the same time redefining the US global leadership role and paving the way for structural changes.
Trump’s past Russia policies and his relations with Putin could have a profound impact on the international dimensions of the Ukraine Crisis. Trump’s soft tone towards Putin has caused great controversy not only in US domestic politics but also worldwide. This suggests that Trump’s approach to the Ukraine Crisis may become more complex and reshape the current global dynamics. In particular, Trump’s emphasis on his relations with Putin and his failure to take a tough enough stance against Russia’s aggressive policies are interpreted by the international community as a shift away from the traditional US strategic approach towards Russia.
In his second presidential term, Trump is likely to pursue a more restrained policy on the Ukraine Crisis. Such an approach could lead to a scenario in which the US avoids direct involvement in the conflict and the burden is largely shifted to European countries. However, this could raise serious questions about the continuity of the transatlantic alliance and Europe’s security. The withdrawal of the United States from a leadership role could put Europe in a more isolated position vis-à-vis Russia, requiring European countries to pursue an independent strategy in dealing with the crisis. This would mean greater European isolation vis-à-vis Russia and would require European countries to pursue a more independent path against Russia. This could hurt NATO’s unity and effectiveness.
In such a scenario, Russia’s strategic calculations should also be carefully considered. In an environment of US withdrawal and a more isolated Europe, Moscow is likely to perceive Europe as a weaker threat. This perception may lead Russia to take bolder steps in maintaining or expanding its aggressive policies in Ukraine. Thus, Trump’s potential policies on the Ukraine Crisis could have profound and long-term implications not only for the future of transatlantic relations and European security arrangements but also for Russia’s regional strategic objectives.
Trump’s energy policies are of strategic importance in the context of the Russia-Ukraine War. During his first presidential term, Trump adopted a strategy of self-sufficiency in energy production and treated the US energy independence as a national security issue. Accordingly, he pursued various policies to increase energy production. While strengthening the US position in the global energy market, these policies had the potential to provide an alternative source for Europe’s energy security. However, Trump’s strategy was criticized because it would impose a financial burden on European countries. In the context of the Ukraine Crisis, Trump’s energy policies are likely to support efforts to reduce Europe’s energy dependence on Russia. In particular, he may be expected to encourage the supply of energy to Europe by increasing liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. However, demanding a greater economic contribution from European countries in this process could create tensions in transatlantic relations. In such a situation, European countries could be in a weak position in terms of energy costs and strategic leadership in addressing the Ukraine Crisis. This could increase Europe’s vulnerability to energy crises while at the same time reshaping US influence over Europe. Trump’s energy policies could have important implications not only for the economic dimension but also for international security and transatlantic solidarity.
Another important issue is the possibility of a significant change in the dynamics of transatlantic relations as the US leadership role in the Russia-Ukraine War diminishes. In particular, Trump’s criticism of NATO allies and his demands on defense spending within the alliance could lead to discussions questioning NATO’s very existence. This will lead European countries to increase their defense capacities and develop an independent strategy. European countries will also need to increase their capacity to defend themselves against the security crisis with Russia, which will bring the European Army debate back to the agenda. However, these efforts may create new tensions within Europe in terms of resource allocation and political consensus. Under the influence of Trump’s policies, it may become more difficult for European countries to formulate a common strategy to address the Ukraine Crisis. This could lead to deeper disagreements, especially in the area of security and defense policies, and complicate the process of building a common European defense force.
While the creation of a European Army aims to increase defense cooperation among EU members, different military capabilities and political priorities could increase the obstacles to this process. Indeed, while Trump’s policies towards the transatlantic alliance have created some problems, they also offer European countries an opportunity to test themselves in terms of improving their defense capacities and strengthening defense integration. However, the uncertainty over who will control the management of the European Army, which is planned to be created within the scope of common defense, will inevitably lead to debates among member states where populism is influential. These debates could deepen divisions in Europe, leading to new crises and a weak stance against Russia.
As a result, Trump’s possible policies toward the Ukraine War risk turning the conflict into a regional showdown between Europe and Russia. Within the framework of the “America First” approach, Trump questions the global leadership role of the United States and demands more responsibility from its allies. While this approach encourages European countries to take more responsibility in the Russia-Ukraine War, it also causes serious uncertainties in international security balances. The level of cohesion and cooperation of European countries in the face of this crisis is critical for the future functioning and resilience of the Western alliance. Trump’s policies can be interpreted as reshaping not only the international position of the United States but also the basic structure of the transatlantic relationship.
