Make no mistake, President Trump is a winner who doesn’t like to lose at anything. On the golf course as much as on NATO or UN issues. Peoples and nations should remain confident in the historic changes that lie ahead after President Donald Trump’s victory and expect a far greater impact than after his first election in 2016.
Donald Trump clearly has a mandate to implement radical changes. The 51% victory of the popular vote gives the necessary legitimacy to his action. He must now deliver on promises to end illegal immigration and reduce inflation, cut government spending, and end racial and gender identity policies, but also restore America’s decisive influence abroad.
The modalities for implementing his international agenda in dealing with enemies will remain unchanged. As happened during his first four years as President of the United States, wars around the world will be ended rather than started. Undeniably, Donald Trump’s re-election marks a turning point in international relations generally. Faced with Trump’s return to the White House, the world powers—both partners and adversaries of the next administration—will all have to revise their foreign policy agendas.
This second term will be a continuation of the first, driven by the “America First” principle, and will profoundly alter the current world order consolidated by the Biden administration, whose priority has been to reassure enemies of the few consequences of their aggressions, hesitantly support allies like Israel, and fuel the war in Ukraine without any plan to win or end it.
Let’s not forget that Trump is the first president since the 1970s not to have started a single war. Still, global tensions are reaching a critical point, and he inherits a world riven by several large-scale conflicts, notably in Ukraine and the Middle East. His election will put global alliances to the test, forcing his administration to juggle strategic reformatting with the preservation of American interests, as well as those of its closest allies.
Isolationism is deeply rooted in American foreign policy, as evidenced by George Washington’s Farewell Address in 1796, in which he warned the nation against permanent alliances. In his address, he also urged Americans to put aside their likes and dislikes towards foreign nations: “The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”
Washington’s words inspired American isolationism, and this principle reappears rightly in the “America First” doctrine. During his first term, Trump limited U.S. involvement abroad and grilled multilateral institutions such as the UN, WHO, UNESCO, and NATO. He preferred diplomatic successes managed bilaterally with the states concerned, such as the Abraham Accords.
This approach is in line with the American tradition of strategic autonomy. The second term should confirm and reinforce this orientation: America will have to warn against long-term commitments that could compromise American interests. By downplaying its international commitments, Donald Trump wants America to remain influential without being compelled to do so and to act solely in its own interests. The evolving relationship between the United States and Europe over the Ukrainian conflict reflects a delicate balance between U.S. domestic priorities and international commitments.
Trump’s return to power and his inclination for de-escalation with Russia could amend American support for Kiev. It also represents a “wake-up call” for the European Union on the need to acquire strategic autonomy—a project that has motivated several recent statements by influential EU members. Europe should seize this opportunity to strengthen its autonomy within NATO and pave the way for countries like France, Germany, and Poland to take the reins of its defense policy.
In any case, the era in which the United States footed most of the bill for Europe’s security and NATO’s operational functioning will come to an end next January. America’s adversaries should nevertheless proceed with caution; Donald Trump’s unpredictability could increase pressure on Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China. This new phase therefore promises a stormy trial in which the adaptability of those who challenge the American interests will be put to the ultimate test.
Until recently, international organizations used to play an inconsequential role in the wrangling among the great powers. This too will have to change. The World Health Organization (WHO) betrayed the world by manipulating available information when it allowed Beijing to hide behind the dissemination of fatally false data on the coronavirus crisis. Clearly, Washington needs to develop an even stronger strategy to counter Beijing at the United Nations and all other international agencies.
Some might consider that these organizations aren’t worth bothering with. But they are. Global institutions can have an impact on the daily lives of Americans. For instance, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) manages the implementation of the convention governing civil air transport worldwide. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) sets safety and security rules for shipping worldwide. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) sets the world’s educational agenda and politicizes every action it takes against Israel.
The widespread criticism that Trump shuns international organizations and cooperation is false. Critics cite examples such as the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate accords and UNESCO, claiming that they reflect the whole of Washington’s treatment of the world. This is not correct, and in the first two years of Trump’s first presidency, for example, his administration signed thirteen international agreements. That’s only one less than during the same period of the Obama administration.
In fact, Mr. Trump is correctly skeptical of international organizations, which he sees as potential threats to national sovereignty, but at the same time remains inclined to engage when it clearly serves American interests. Managing global disorder, however, will not be an easy task. The size, structure, and objectives of international organizations are too varied for a single approach to be applied to all. One option is to withdraw. Sometimes this choice is appropriate, as when President Bill Clinton chose to leave the United Nations Industrial Development Organization because the organization had no clear objective, or when the Trump administration left UNESCO in 2018, also because its decision to grant membership to Palestine prevented the United States from providing funds since 2011.
Another option is to found new organizations to supersede those that are not fulfilling their essential functions, but there are severe drawbacks to starting from scratch. If international organizations today seem unbalanced, we can imagine what the UN Charter would be like if it were drafted today under the leadership of China, the European Union, the Group of Seventy-Seven (G-77), and the slew of liberal non-governmental organizations. The influence of the United States in that process would be considerably reduced. Thus, nothing essential will happen in the short term. For Trump to succeed in doing anything that will have a significant effect on the revitalization of international organizations, he will first need to develop a solid strategy, do the groundwork with key allies, and devote his entire second term to implementing change.
An effective American strategy towards international organizations is critical. America should marginalize and ignore organizations that have become a playground for empty rhetoric, no longer capable of delivering real value. UNESCO is a good example. In a recent interview with Le Figaro newspaper, the agency’s French Director General, Audrey Azoulay, boldly bragged that if Trump left UNESCO again as he did in 2018, “it would not jeopardize the organization.” According to Ms. Azoulay: “The financial weight of the United States, which represented some 20% of the total before 2018, now only weighs 8%.” Regardless of Ms. Azoulay’s opinion, this still represents $75 million a year, and U.S. taxpayers’ money could certainly be put to better use, since according to UNESCO’s Director General, the potential U.S. withdrawal would make little difference to the agency’s usual businesses.
Her point about the low added value of the United States at UNESCO is well noted, and it’s likely that the U.S. Permanent Representative to UNESCO, Ambassador Courtney Diesel O’Donnell (https://x.com/usunesco), has already conveyed Azoulay’s interview in the French press to her superiors at the State Department. If not, we will. Some organizations (ICAO and IMO) require universal membership to fulfill their functions; others do not. Those that require global participation need determined and consistent leadership from the United States. The rest may well be phased out.
Now is the time for a solid plan to use America’s reformed international agenda and increase its global influence to protect and expand fundamental freedoms around the world. All eyes are on Donald Trump to achieve this over the next four years.