26 January 2025 – 1 week into the second Trump presidency

The United States has been the world’s most influential nation for decades now. How will this change now that Mr Trump is back in office? What are the implications for allies, adversaries and United States itself?

Already there is clear discombobulation among governments and global elites at the pace and aggressiveness of Mr Trump’s policy actions. Apparently they didn’t believe that he was going to do what he said he was going to do at the speed he is doing it. He is using the power of his office to dominate the global conversation and to bend others to his will. The nodding heads, worried looks and lack of push back from his audiences – from Las Vegas to Davos – suggests he appears to be succeeding. This however is likely a short to medium term reaction. As global leaders are able to take a breath and identify strategies and alliances, this will gradually change.

Mr Trump appears not to believe in the value of alliances and multinational organisations in the traditional sense. Where the allied nations combined strengths are greater than the individual elements of it. For him, organisations such as NATO, IMF, WHO and even the UN are forums that cynically take advantage of the United States’ wealth and generosity. He doesn’t seem to recognise the immense wealth and power the United States has accumulated within these global structures – or at least considers that it has been accrued in spite rather than in partnership with them. Because of this outlook his position is that the United States needs to be in the most powerful position possible to cope with future global challenges – most pressingly from China. When push comes to shove, after all, he believes that others will just be looking out for themselves, just as he would. To that end he has and will identify what he can do to bolster that strength through acquisition of strategic territory, resources or technology.

When it comes to allies, there are two approaches that are being taken

1. Just take what they have. People seem to thinking he is joking about absorbing Canada into the US – he is probably not. It is unlikely he has a solid plan on how to do this, but he will be vigilant for opportunities to create openings where such a thing becomes at least an option that is no longer considered ridiculous. Greenland and Panama are already being actively pushed. Diego Garcia, the Azores, Iceland, maybe smaller south sea island nations may be next.
2. Incentivise the behaviour you want. In reality it would better be described as coercion. Using the threat of large and wide spread trade tariffs or exclusion from the world’s biggest market as the primary weapon of choice, but also removal of security guarantees or cutting off of aid. This has already happened to Columbia for turning back a plane full of migrants, and will happen to NATO countries who Mr Trump feels are not spending enough on defence. Egypt and Jordon will likely also be targets if they don’t take Palastinians being forced out of Gaza. There will almost certainly be myriad other examples over the next four years.

The problem with both these approaches is in their transactional nature. If allies think that the dominant party is only in it for themselves then they will co-operate as necessary, but they aren’t true friends, and will not be there when your back is against the wall and you don’t have leverage – you get what you give. Her allies may view the United States as no longer a trusted partner that stands for democracy and global human well-being, but a self centred entity, suspicious of everyone’s motives.

The other major problem is that no one likes to be on the wrong end of a coercive relationship. The countries that are, or consider themselves to be, will develop strategies to mitigate that. They will also develop relationships of the like minded to counter that influence. This will lead to fragmentation within previously strong organisations. A lack of sharing of information and knowledge will be very dangerous. Because the United States will not have ears on the ground within those organisations, either because they have left, or because they are not trusted sufficiently, they may not find out until it is to late that things are going badly wrong. In the end both the United States and her allies will be weaker and less able to manage natural or man-made crises – climate change related migration, war, future pandemics, run-away AI are just a few possibilities that spring to mind.

For adversaries of the United States the status quo probably changes much less. As someone else said ‘as the architect of a new building it is much easier to influence the person trying to build it, than the arsonist trying to burn it down‘. However, the lack of cohesion and leadership in organisations that maintain the current rules based order, will most likely provide openings for trouble makers to disrupt, or offer alternative options that fit more with their strength-is-king view of the world.

Mr Trump rightly identifies that change is needed, and many institutions are too inward looking and ineffective. The hard work would be to stay and fix them, but the US has the wherewithal to do that. Unfortunately America First is in danger of becoming America Only. That would make the world a much more complex, fragmented and dangerous place.

MT