The phrase “When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold” illustrates the significant impact of the American economy on global markets, a concept that extends to foreign policy during the Trump administration.

As President-elect, Donald Trump possesses a strong electoral mandate that empowers him to pursue his “America First” agenda once he assumes office. Global leaders are now strategizing on the potential shifts that may occur following Trump’s inauguration.

At first glance, there are notable contrasts in foreign policy between Trump and President Joe Biden. Trump’s inclination towards isolationism suggests he will erect barriers around the United States—both literally, through border security, and economically, by imposing tariffs that increase the cost of foreign imports. Additionally, Trump is expected to adopt a critical stance towards alliances like NATO, withdraw from international agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord, and potentially reduce or eliminate U.S. support for Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia.

However, it is worth noting that, unexpectedly, there are several key foreign policy areas where Trump and the Biden administration align. The upcoming Trump administration is likely to maintain certain consistencies with Biden’s strategies regarding China, the Middle East, and the withdrawal of U.S. troops stationed abroad.

China

During his initial term, Trump adopted a significantly more confrontational stance towards China, moving away from the optimistic beliefs held by prior US administrations that economic growth in Beijing would lead to political liberalization. The Trump administration began to view China as a potential adversary, exemplified by an increase in “freedom of navigation” operations in the South China Sea, a region largely claimed by China. Additionally, the Trump administration imposed a broad array of tariffs on numerous Chinese products.

Upon taking office, Biden maintained Trump’s stringent approach towards China, retaining the tariffs and escalating measures by imposing a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles and prohibiting US companies from investing in China in ways that could benefit the Chinese military. The Biden administration also strengthened alliances aimed at countering Beijing, such as the 2021 AUKUS agreement between the US, the UK, and Australia, which includes provisions for supplying nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.

It is reasonable to predict that if Trump were to secure a second term, he would largely adhere to the strategies established during his first term, strategies that have been further reinforced by Biden.

There may be notable distinctions between Trump and Biden regarding the future of Taiwan, a democratically governed island that China has long asserted as part of its territory and which maintains a close alliance with the United States. In 2022, Biden explicitly stated that the U.S. would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion, moving away from the previous policy of “strategic ambiguity,” which aimed to keep China uncertain about U.S. responses to potential aggression.

Should Taiwan face an invasion, it could present a significant challenge for Trump during a potential second term. The CIA has indicated that Chinese President Xi Jinping has instructed the People’s Liberation Army to prepare for an invasion by 2027. Alternatively, China might consider implementing a naval blockade to gradually pressure Taiwan into accepting a compromise that would grant it a status of quasi-autonomy under Chinese governance.

What actions Trump would take in response to a Chinese invasion or blockade of Taiwan remains uncertain. In July, he remarked that “Taiwan should pay us for defense,” implying a reluctance to quickly deploy American forces to protect the island in the event of Chinese aggression.

Last year, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank based in Washington, conducted a simulation of a Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan. After running the simulation 24 times, the results indicated that “The United States and its allies lost dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of service members.” Given Trump’s inclination towards isolationism, he may be hesitant to accept such significant costs during his presidency.

Middle East

In the Middle East, it is anticipated that there will be significant continuity between the Biden and Trump administrations. Although Biden has occasionally criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the civilian casualties resulting from Israeli military actions in Gaza, he has largely allowed Netanyahu the autonomy to pursue military operations against Hamas in Gaza and to address threats from Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Following the Israeli operation that resulted in the death of a prominent Iranian general in Syria in April, the Biden administration coordinated an international coalition to bolster Israel’s defenses when Iran launched numerous drone and missile attacks, which ultimately inflicted minimal damage. In October, the administration again played a role in intercepting approximately 200 Iranian ballistic missiles aimed at Israel, with similar limited impact on Israeli targets.

Regarding Iran, the Biden administration initially sought to revive the nuclear agreement established during the Obama era, but ultimately chose not to reinstate the deal. Over the past year, the Biden administration has also authorized multiple military strikes against the Iranian-aligned Houthis in Yemen, who have been actively targeting shipping along the vital Red Sea trade route with drones and missiles in support of Hamas.

It is difficult to envision a significant shift in Biden’s strong support for Israel and his administration’s firm stance against Iranian proxies like the Houthis if Trump were to return to office.

During his presidency, Trump overlooked Israel’s extensive settlement expansion in the West Bank. Concurrently, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, facilitated the Abraham Accords, which established diplomatic ties between Israel and several Arab nations but did not address Palestinian concerns. Additionally, Trump authorized the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani during his visit to Iraq in 2020.

Prior to the disruption caused by the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas in Israel and the ensuing conflict in Gaza, the Biden administration was actively working to expand the Abraham Accords, aiming to secure a deal that would see Saudi Arabia recognize Israel for the first time.

In summary, there is little to differentiate Biden and Trump regarding their overarching Middle Eastern policies, despite some of Trump’s supporters asserting that Biden is less supportive of Israel and Iran.

Nevertheless, the appointment of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as Trump’s ambassador to Israel—who has controversially stated that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian”—could suggest a greater inclination within a Trump administration towards endorsing Israel’s annexation of portions of the West Bank. Indeed, during Trump’s first term, his ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, indicated that the administration might back Israel’s annexation efforts.

The recent indictment of an Iranian individual accused of attempting to assassinate Trump is unlikely to improve relations between Iran and the incoming president. Once Trump assumes office, it is anticipated that his administration will intensify sanctions against Iran, particularly targeting its oil exports. The United States has imposed sanctions on the Iranian government for many years, yet these measures have had minimal impact on altering the regime’s conduct. Following the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the nuclear agreement in 2018, which had restricted Iran’s uranium enrichment to levels far below weapons-grade, the Iranian regime now possesses sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons, as reported by the US Defense Intelligence Agency.

Regarding the repatriation of US troops

In 2020, the Trump administration formalized a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban concerning US forces in Afghanistan. Biden adhered to this plan in the summer of 2021, resulting in the exit of the remaining 2,500 US troops and allowing the Taliban to regain control of Afghanistan.

In a similar vein, the Biden administration is currently in discussions to withdraw an unspecified number of the 2,500 US troops stationed in Iraq, who are engaged in combating the remnants of ISIS. Given Trump’s longstanding skepticism about the US military presence in the Middle East, it is likely that this withdrawal agreement will proceed as planned.

Significant changes on the horizon: Personnel shapes policy

The phrase “personnel is policy” was a guiding principle during the Reagan administration. As Team Trump prepares for a return to power, they have gained a deeper understanding of the foreign policy and national security frameworks, a knowledge that was lacking at the outset of Trump’s first term. They intend to implement changes at the senior level and potentially among career foreign service and intelligence officers. In 2021, JD Vance, now the vice president-elect, suggested during a podcast that Trump should “dismiss every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, and replace them with our people.”

During Trump’s first term, some high-ranking officials, including his second national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, played a crucial role in guiding Trump toward more prudent decisions, such as reversing his initial desire to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. However, after McMaster’s departure in 2018, the Trump administration proceeded to negotiate a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban. The incoming administration is unlikely to feature many independent voices akin to McMaster’s.

In the Trump administration, loyalty is regarded as the highest virtue. Trump has publicly excluded his former UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, and former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, from consideration for top positions. Haley opposed Trump in the GOP primary, while Pompeo contemplated a presidential bid. Trump is seeking a team of unwavering loyalists, including senior House Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik, whom he has proposed for the role of UN ambassador.

Loyalty to the president is a common expectation for cabinet members, and an appointee’s allegiance to Trump does not necessarily imply that they lack qualifications for their position.

Consider Trump’s selection for national security adviser, Republican Rep. Mike Waltz from Florida. Waltz is a retired Special Forces colonel with extensive experience, having completed multiple tours in Afghanistan. In addition to his military background, he has operated a small business, authored two books, and has spent the last five years in Congress, actively participating in the House Armed Services Committee. His experience also includes a policy role at the Pentagon and serving as a policy adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan during the George W. Bush administration.

Overall, Waltz possesses qualifications for the national security adviser role that are comparable to those of previous officeholders, combining battlefield experience in Afghanistan with a comprehensive understanding of the political landscape in Washington, including the Hill, the Pentagon, and the White House.

The selection of Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host and former US military major with limited administrative experience beyond a small nonprofit, to oversee the Pentagon’s nearly 3 million employees raises questions.

When compared to previous secretaries of defense like retired four-star generals Lloyd Austin and Jim Mattis, or Robert Gates, who had extensive experience in various government roles including as CIA director, Hegseth appears to be an unconventional choice. It will be noteworthy to observe how his nomination is received in the Senate, where the Republican majority is narrow.

US Civil Servants to become ‘at will’ employees?

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, primarily developed by former Trump administration officials and the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute, aims to ensure that loyalists are appointed throughout key national security agencies.

Although Trump has publicly distanced himself from Project 2025, CNN has reported that at least 140 individuals who collaborated with him were also involved in the initiative. Notably, Project 2025 produced an extensive 887-page report featuring dedicated chapters on the State Department, the intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Pentagon, all authored by officials who held senior positions during the first Trump administration.

These chapters appear to be based on the assumption that a faction of State Department foreign service officers and U.S. intelligence personnel would obstruct a conservative president like Trump at every opportunity, necessitating their replacement with loyal supporters.

The America First Policy Institute takes this a step further in its policy suggestions, proposing that civil servants be treated as “at-will” employees. It asserts, “Agencies should have the autonomy to dismiss employees for any non-discriminatory reason, without the possibility of external appeals.”

Should this policy be enacted, every American agency would be filled with political loyalists, reminiscent of the 19th century, prior to the establishment of a merit-based professional civil service designed to support presidents from any political party.

Moreover, what would motivate individuals to join the State Department or the CIA and invest time in mastering complex languages or specialized fields like arms control negotiations if their positions could be jeopardized with each new presidential administration?

If the Trump administration seeks to dismiss career foreign service and intelligence officers, it is likely that federal unions will mount legal challenges. Additionally, there could be considerable resignations within certain agencies if personnel believe their expertise in foreign affairs or intelligence work is being significantly compromised.

The forthcoming Trump administration appears determined to revive Schedule F, an executive order introduced during the final months of Trump’s first term. This initiative would significantly increase the number of political appointees in federal agencies from approximately 4,000 to as many as 50,000, with the majority likely replacing established career civil servants.

This approach raises concerns, particularly regarding the US intelligence community, which is tasked with delivering potentially unwelcome news to the president that may contradict his existing beliefs about global affairs. Consequently, there are typically only four political appointees at the CIA, with similarly limited numbers in other US intelligence agencies.

The nomination of former Rep. John Ratcliffe from Texas, a Trump loyalist, to lead the CIA has not faced substantial backlash, as he is familiar to the US intelligence community through his previous roles on the House Intelligence Committee and as the director of national intelligence during Trump’s first term, overseeing the 18 American intelligence agencies. However, the nomination of former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii for the position of director of national intelligence is likely to face challenges due to her previous support for adversaries of the US, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, both of whom are critical targets for US intelligence operations.

The Future of NATO and Ukraine

Former President Trump has claimed he could broker a peace agreement to resolve the conflict in Ukraine within a day. This assertion appears unlikely, considering that Russia and Ukraine have been engaged in hostilities for nearly a decade.

However, given Trump’s ambition to be recognized as a skilled negotiator, there may be an opportunity for him to facilitate a resolution, especially as Ukraine faces increasing challenges in the conflict. A recent report from the US Congressional Research Service highlighted that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers is 40, a statistic that underscores the strain on their military. Additionally, there is a growing awareness among Ukrainians that the Republican-led Congress may be hesitant to allocate further billions to support their efforts.

On the other hand, Russia’s decision to enlist North Korean troops in its campaign against Ukraine indicates that President Putin is reluctant to initiate a large-scale mobilization within Russia, which could be met with public discontent. This suggests that he may also be inclined to seek a resolution to the conflict under terms that he finds acceptable.

A potential resolution to the ongoing conflict may involve Russia retaining control of Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, while Ukraine regains some territories in eastern Ukraine currently held by Russia. In exchange, Ukraine would forgo NATO membership but receive security assurances from the United States similar to those provided to Japan. While neither Russia nor Ukraine may fully endorse this arrangement, the alternative could lead to a prolonged conflict that has already resulted in approximately one million casualties on both sides.

Regarding NATO, John Bolton, former national security adviser to Trump, indicated in 2023 during the Audible podcast “In the Room” that Trump would likely reassess NATO’s foundational principles, potentially leading to a U.S. withdrawal from the alliance in a second term. However, recent actions by the U.S. Congress have made it more challenging for any president to exit NATO, requiring a supermajority in the Senate or a full Congressional vote to do so.

Nevertheless, Trump has the capacity to significantly undermine NATO’s purpose of collective defense through his public remarks, given his position as commander-in-chief of the leading nation in the alliance. In February, he suggested that he would support Russia in taking actions against any NATO member that fails to allocate 2 percent of its GDP to defense spending.

Earlier this month, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte emphasized that Putin’s ambitions extend beyond merely seizing Ukraine. He stated, “Russia is escalating its hybrid warfare tactics across allied nations, directly interfering in our democratic processes, undermining industries, and engaging in acts of violence. This indicates that the frontline of this conflict is no longer confined to Ukraine; it is increasingly extending into the Baltic region and Western Europe.”

Given Trump’s unusual rapport with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russia may feel emboldened to persist in its attempts to destabilize NATO countries, aware that Trump may not take a strong stance against such actions.

Deportations

The recent announcement that Tom Homan, a staunch immigration hardliner and former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Trump, will assume the role of “border czar” signals that the forthcoming Trump administration intends to adopt a stringent approach to deportations. In making this announcement, Trump tweeted that Homan “will oversee all Deportation of Illegal Aliens back to their Country of Origin.”

During Trump’s previous term, his administration was responsible for the separation of over 3,000 migrant children from their families. At a CNN town hall last year, Trump suggested that this controversial policy might be reinstated, stating, “When you tell a family that if they come, we’re going to break you up, they don’t come.”

Trump has ambitious plans for his second term, particularly focusing on the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. Estimates from the Department of Homeland Security in 2022 indicated that approximately 11 million unauthorized migrants resided in the United States, though the actual figure may be significantly higher. Trump has suggested that the number could range from 15 to 20 million individuals he intends to deport.

According to CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez, the Trump administration is expected to prioritize the deportation of unauthorized migrants who have been charged with crimes. However, the complete removal of all unauthorized migrants will present considerable logistical, financial, and legal challenges.

A recent report from the American Immigration Council, a liberal advocacy group, estimated that the cost of deporting millions of illegal immigrants over the next decade could approach one trillion dollars. When asked about funding for this initiative in an NBC News interview last week, Trump stated, “It’s not a question of a price tag. It’s not — really, we have no choice.”

The Supreme Court has determined that migrants residing in the U.S. are entitled to due process prior to deportation. This means that migrants awaiting legal proceedings will need to be detained somewhere. The process of rounding up millions of migrants and conducting numerous hearings will require the recruitment of many immigration agents and judges, as well as the construction of new detention facilities. To illustrate the scale of this undertaking, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons reported in 2022 that there were approximately 1.2 million prisoners in the country.

Following Trump’s election victory, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey announced that she would not permit state police to be utilized for the deportation of residents.

Stephen Miller, who was appointed by Trump as deputy chief of staff for policy, previously indicated that the National Guard could be deployed for deportations in states with uncooperative local authorities. Earlier this year, Trump also mentioned to TIME that he would have “no problem using the military, per se,” for deportation efforts.

The sight of American soldiers apprehending and deporting individuals, including families, would likely be met with significant disapproval from many citizens.

Tariffs

Both Trump and Biden have enacted tariffs on products manufactured in China, such as footwear and luggage. Biden escalated this by imposing 100% tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. However, Trump has proposed a more extensive approach, pledging to implement 60% tariffs on all Chinese imports and 10% tariffs on goods from other countries. The implications of this remain to be seen, as tariffs effectively act as a tax on American consumers and contribute to inflation by increasing prices. Additionally, it is uncertain whether Trump could enforce tariffs on imports from all nations, given that only the U.S. Congress holds the authority to levy taxes, while the president can impose tariffs on countries like China only in cases of unfair trade practices, as noted in an analysis by the Washington Post.

Climate change

During his initial months in office, Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” he expressed skepticism about climate change, suggesting it might “change back again” and questioning its human origins. Given the trajectory of 2024 as potentially the hottest year on record, it is unlikely that his stance would shift in a second term, especially considering the U.S. remains the largest producer of oil and gas globally and the second-largest emitter of carbon.

An unpredictably predictable leader

Trump’s leadership style is characterized by a blend of predictability and unpredictability. For example, during his first term, his national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, managed to convince him to maintain a presence in Afghanistan. However, Trump later reversed his position, allowing his team to negotiate a withdrawal with the Taliban, even extending an invitation to their leaders for discussions at Camp David before ultimately rescinding it.

It is conceivable that Trump, viewing himself as a skilled negotiator, might pursue a diplomatic agreement in the Middle East aimed at normalizing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel in exchange for a viable two-state solution. Additionally, he could seek to address the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, potentially aiming for an armistice similar to the one that has maintained peace on the Korean Peninsula since 1953, even if a formal peace agreement remains elusive.

It is important to remember that, despite the highly publicized summits and the so-called “love letters” exchanged between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the former president was unable to secure a deal that would eliminate or even curb North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

It is likely that Trump will maintain the stringent policies on China that he established, which Biden has since adopted and intensified. In the Middle East, Trump is expected to adhere to the same strategy he employed during his presidency: prioritizing Israel’s interests, a stance that Biden has also embraced. Thus, on two critical issues—U.S.-China relations and the trajectory of the Middle East—there will probably be significant similarities between the two administrations.

However, Trump is likely to diverge from Biden in several areas. He may seek to weaken NATO, oversee large-scale deportations of undocumented immigrants potentially involving military resources, undermine initiatives aimed at combating climate change, and possibly instigate a serious trade conflict with China, which could have widespread repercussions for the global economy. In essence, Trump’s approach will reflect an isolationist “America First” policy, enforced by loyalists across his administration.