Trump’s Foreign and Economic Strategy: A Return to Realism and Protectionism

As Donald J. Trump positions himself for a potential return to the White House, his first-term legacy in foreign and economic policy offers important insights into the trajectory he may pursue. Anchored in realism and protectionism, Trump's strategic doctrine represents a sharp pivot from the liberal internationalism that characterized U.S. global engagement since the end of the Cold War. A second Trump administration could entrench these shifts, challenging multilateral institutions, disrupting global alliances, and redefining America’s international role through a lens of power politics and economic nationalism

Realpolitik in Action: Transactional Foreign Policy Over Ideals

At the heart of Trump’s foreign policy is a return to realpolitik—governance guided less by values and more by calculated national self-interest. His administration viewed alliances as expendable if they no longer delivered tangible benefits, subordinating traditional diplomatic norms to a hard-nosed assessment of power dynamics. Trump’s rhetoric and policy decisions signaled a distinct retreat from the post-WWII liberal order built on cooperation, human rights, and global stewardship.

His preference for bilateral over multilateral engagement—whether in trade, diplomacy, or security—further illustrates this break. This worldview rationalized undermining NATO, withdrawing from global treaties like the Paris Climate Accord, and threatening to curtail support for allies, including Ukraine. Such actions were not anomalies but reflections of a coherent, if contentious, strategy aimed at reducing U.S. entanglements and recalibrating its global footprint in favor of strategic autonomy.

As a former Trump advisor bluntly stated in Foreign Affairs, “Alliances are tools, not obligations.” This sentiment encapsulates the administration’s ethos and explains its readiness to jettison longstanding commitments that did not yield immediate strategic gain.

The “Reverse Kissinger” Strategy: Disentangling China and Russia?

One of the more provocative theories surrounding Trump’s foreign policy is the so-called “reverse Kissinger” strategy—a proposed effort to realign Russia with the West in order to isolate China, echoing Cold War tactics that sought to divide Beijing and Moscow. Trump’s personal admiration for Vladimir Putin, along with his openness to easing sanctions, suggests a willingness to reset U.S.-Russia relations. However, this approach lacks clear long-term objectives and appears more aspirational than practical.

Russia’s growing economic and strategic dependence on China makes such a pivot increasingly unlikely. As Amanda Xiao of the Eurasia Group observes, “Putin has little incentive to turn West—especially with China’s economic support.” The ongoing war in Ukraine and Russia’s pariah status in much of the Western world further complicate any potential rapprochement, highlighting the limitations of Trump’s personalized diplomacy when confronted with entrenched geopolitical realities.

Furthermore, the troubled history of U.S.-Russia relations—and the evolving nature of the Sino-Russian strategic alliance—suggests that a "reverse Kissinger" maneuver is unlikely to succeed at this stage. Putin has few incentives to abandon a dependable partner like China in favor of an uncertain relationship with the United States, which has repeatedly acted against Russian interests. From rebuffing Russia’s early overtures to join NATO, to the perceived betrayal of assurances that NATO would not expand eastward, to Washington’s extensive support for Ukraine during the ongoing conflict, the U.S. has often been viewed in Moscow as a destabilizing force rather than a reliable partner.

A Multipolar World of Spheres: Cold War Concepts Reinvigorated

Trump’s geopolitical thinking draws heavily from an older framework: spheres of influence. Reviving this Cold War-era logic, his administration has shown a willingness to cede regional dominance to other great powers—particularly Russia in Eastern Europe and China in Asia—so long as U.S. supremacy in the Western Hemisphere is maintained. This approach effectively relinquishes the ideal of a liberal, rules-based order in favor of a fragmented, multipolar world.

Domestic allies like Senator JD Vance have amplified this shift, suggesting that Europe should take greater responsibility for its own defense. In doing so, the Trump camp implicitly questions NATO’s continued relevance. This has prompted anxiety among transatlantic allies and reinvigorated debates within Europe about developing independent security frameworks, potentially diminishing Washington’s influence over European defense and diplomacy.

As one European diplomat quipped, “It’s not about whether the U.S. wins or loses—it’s about whether Trump thinks it fits his story.” This observation captures the deeply personalized, often theatrical nature of Trump’s foreign policy style.

Economic Nationalism Ascendant: Tariffs as Tools of Statecraft

Trump’s economic policy is equally shaped by a philosophy of self-sufficiency and confrontation. His embrace of tariffs—particularly against China—reflects not only a tactical response to perceived unfair trade but also a broader ideological rejection of globalization. During his first term, sweeping tariffs were imposed on billions in Chinese imports, part of a broader effort to “reshore” manufacturing and protect domestic industries.

While politically resonant, particularly in America’s industrial heartlands, the economic impact of this strategy has been ambiguous. As Politico and The Washington Post report, the tariffs contributed to higher consumer prices, disrupted supply chains, and failed to significantly reduce the U.S.-China trade imbalance. The inflationary effects of such measures have been criticized as undermining consumer welfare, with one trade official remarking, “You can’t both kill imports and rely on them for government funding.”

Despite these challenges, Trump’s economic message resonates with a populist base that perceives globalization as a threat to livelihoods and national identity. For this constituency, protectionism is not merely an economic policy—it is a declaration of sovereignty.

Populism Meets Protectionism: A Risky Fusion

The fusion of populism and protectionism poses significant long-term risks. While rhetorically compelling, this policy mix often obscures economic realities. Economists warn that indiscriminate tariff policies risk driving inflation, reducing consumer choice, and prompting retaliatory measures from trading partners. One analyst wryly observed, “If tariffs reduce the trade gap, it might just mean Americans can’t afford to buy anything anymore.”

Moreover, the unpredictability of Trump’s trade policy—frequent reversals, tariff threats, and unilateral declarations—creates uncertainty for global markets and erodes investor confidence. The larger concern is whether such an approach can deliver sustainable economic gains or merely offer short-term political victories at long-term structural cost.

The Waning of U.S. Global Leadership?

Trump’s vision of “America First” could, paradoxically, leave the U.S. more isolated. In a world increasingly defined by multipolarity—with China, India, the EU, and regional blocs asserting themselves—the U.S. risks marginalization if it retreats from cooperative leadership. The perception of America as an unreliable partner may already be reshaping global alliances.

Europe, for instance, has taken Trump-era warnings seriously. Leaders like Emmanuel Macron are advocating for strategic autonomy, including independent defense capabilities. If Trump continues to undermine NATO and question America’s commitments, he may catalyze a broader decoupling from the transatlantic alliance, weakening one of the most stable pillars of postwar geopolitics.

Conclusion: Disruption or Redirection?

A second Trump term would solidify an America-first doctrine rooted in unilateralism, strategic pragmatism, and economic protectionism. Supporters view this approach as a necessary correction to an overextended and self-sacrificing foreign policy. Critics see it as a recipe for instability, diminished global influence, and long-term strategic decline.

Whether the Trump Doctrine signifies a bold new era or a dangerous detour remains to be seen. But its disruptive potential is undeniable. At stake is not only America’s role in the world—but the shape of the international order itself.