Donald Trump’s election victory has sparked apprehension among advocates of the current foreign policy approach under the Biden administration, while simultaneously igniting optimism among those seeking a shift in direction. A critical question looms, echoing through American political discussions and resonating with both allies and adversaries of the U.S. globally: what level of change in U.S. foreign policy can be anticipated from a new Trump administration?

Many analysts, referencing the assertive rhetoric from Trump and his campaign team, predict that his return to the presidency could lead to substantial policy alterations. Nevertheless, even with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress—particularly in the Senate, which wields significant power over foreign policy—it is improbable that Trump will be able to fully fulfill his commitments in this domain.

In theory, Trump’s resurgence in the presidency would occur under optimal circumstances for advancing his foreign policy objectives. The Republican Party not only boasts a reinforced majority in the House of Representatives but has also regained control of the Senate, which plays a crucial role in shaping foreign policy through the confirmation of key appointments and the ratification of international agreements.

Concerns regarding significant changes in foreign policy resonate with the experiences of Trump’s initial term, during which his assertive rhetoric was often interpreted as shifts in policy, though they did not materialize. Upon returning to the presidency, Trump is anticipated to revive the “America First” doctrine in foreign affairs, suggesting a more pragmatic stance on global issues without necessarily overhauling the existing foreign policy objectives and priorities.

Trump’s first term: Tactical adjustments, strategic consistency

The assumption that Trump’s 2016 election would lead to drastic transformations in U.S. foreign policy was proven incorrect. For instance, the Republican candidate vowed to dismantle NATO, foster closer relations with Russia, and adopt a more aggressive posture towards China. He frequently criticized European nations for their inadequate defense expenditures and threatened to diminish the U.S. commitment to NATO.

It is likely that he will again advocate for increased defense spending among NATO allies, stressing that the U.S. should not shoulder the primary responsibility. This stance created friction within the alliance and prompted a reallocation of responsibilities, ultimately reinforcing NATO by motivating European nations to take greater ownership of their security.

Trump also indicated a wish to strengthen ties with Moscow, expressing admiration for Putin and seeking a new nuclear arms control agreement that would involve China. However, these aspirations resulted in further sanctions against Russia and heightened support for Ukraine, hindering any substantial improvement in U.S.-Russia relations.

Under Trump’s administration, the United States initiated an active trade conflict with China, limited collaboration in advanced technology sectors, and enacted measures to mitigate Chinese influence in Asia and beyond. These confrontational actions, however, can be seen as a natural extension of the containment policy and the “pivot to Asia” strategy that the Obama administration had previously established, thus not representing a significant policy shift.

Trump administration may pursue a more pragmatic approach to the Ukraine conflict

A major focus of Trump’s foreign policy during his second term is anticipated to be the situation in Ukraine. Throughout his campaign, Trump asserted that he could swiftly resolve the ongoing conflict with Russia if elected. Nevertheless, he also indicated that he would not guarantee an increase in aid to Ukraine, emphasizing that European nations should shoulder a greater share of the responsibility for its support.

Trump’s relationship with Russia has been characterized by contradictions. He has expressed a desire for closer ties with Putin, often praising him as “brilliant” and “smart.” At the same time, he has criticized Russia’s actions in Ukraine, labeling them a “huge mistake” on Putin’s part. This inconsistency, along with anti-Ukraine remarks from Trump’s close advisors, has led to uncertainty regarding the approach Washington might adopt under a new Republican administration.

It is expected that Trump will aim for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, likely utilizing Kiev’s reliance on U.S. military and economic aid, as well as the potential withdrawal of this support, as leverage in negotiations for peace.

A peace agreement is likely to be reached under terms that are less advantageous for Ukraine than they would have been a year ago. As the situation on the ground increasingly favors Russia, Ukraine’s territorial setbacks indicate that any future peace negotiations could present more difficulties for Kiev than if discussions had occurred earlier.

If this scenario unfolds, it would not represent a significant change in US foreign policy, similar to other critical areas.

The current Biden administration has exhibited signs of “Ukraine fatigue,” reflecting a growing reluctance to continue costly support for Kiev. Public opinion in the US also shows a consistent decline in backing for sustaining current aid levels to Ukraine. Even in the event of a Democratic win in the presidential election, with Kamala Harris assuming the presidency and Democrats maintaining control of Congress, support for Ukraine would likely continue to diminish gradually.

The Trump administration might pursue a strategy aimed at a more pragmatic resolution to the Ukraine conflict. This approach could involve a decrease in military assistance coupled with active diplomatic efforts, which, if successful, would allow Trump to present an “effective resolution” to the conflict. However, for Ukraine and its allies, this strategy could lead to increased pressure on Kiev to make concessions, potentially undermining its negotiating position and altering the regional power dynamics.

The primary constraint: Institutional inertia or the deep state

The unlikelihood of radical shifts in US foreign policy stems from the institutional inertia inherent in the decision-making framework. The foreign policy of the United States is highly bureaucratic and cannot function independently of the competing interests among various influential groups. While the president holds considerable authority, significant foreign policy decisions require consideration of Congress. Additionally, the influence of the deep state on foreign policy remains a notable factor.

A second term for Trump is expected to result in a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy. His administration would probably adopt a firmer position against China, lessen support for Ukraine, redistribute responsibilities among NATO allies, and reduce U.S. participation in international alliances and agreements.

Although these adjustments may seem substantial, they will not represent a total transformation of the long-standing foreign policy trajectory of Washington.