Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
Donald Trump’s presidency has been a transformative period in the history of U.S. foreign policy. His return to the White House solidifies his role as a pivotal figure, much like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, who redefined the role of the United States on the global stage. While Roosevelt’s multilateral approach shaped “The American Century” and Reagan championed “peace through strength,” Trump embodies a new era: the age of nationalism. This shift reflects a broader global trend that began in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, characterized by protectionism, hardened borders, and economic nationalism.Trump’s foreign policy approach raises significant questions about the future of U.S. relations with China, Russia, India, and emerging global powers. Under both Trump and his successor, President Joe Biden, Washington has focused on consolidating U.S. power, particularly by countering China’s economic and military rise. This emphasis on great-power competition has led to an aggressive economic strategy, marked by tariffs and export controls designed to weaken China’s economic influence. Instead of fostering global economic growth, U.S. policies have prioritized supply-chain resilience and economic security, leading to a more insular and protectionist stance.The resurgence of nationalism has influenced not only the United States but also other nations across the world. Figures such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, and Trump himself have capitalized on nationalist sentiments, advocating policies that prioritize national sovereignty over global cooperation. Washington has played a role in reinforcing this trend rather than challenging it. The shift from economic interdependence to protectionist policies reflects a global retreat from the liberal order that defined much of the post-World War II era.The pivot to great-power competition underscores this nationalist shift. Rather than fostering a new internationalist order in the tradition of Roosevelt’s multilateralism, the United States has sustained an outdated model based on U.S. primacy. This approach has limited the ability of policymakers to envision a world order that prioritizes peace and stability over geopolitical rivalry. The framing of China as an existential threat, akin to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, has exacerbated tensions and deepened the global divide between democratic and authoritarian regimes.If the United States aims to restore its leadership in addressing global challenges such as climate change, democratic backsliding, economic inequality, and sovereign debt crises, it must move beyond the age of nationalism. Roosevelt’s vision of a multilateral order sought to maintain peace and global justice by leveraging U.S. economic and military power in collaboration with international partners. The post-World War II order, though imperfect, created space for emerging economies to assert their interests through institutions such as the United Nations and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). This period of international cooperation enabled economic growth and political stability, despite ongoing disparities between developed and developing nations.Following the Cold War, the United States shifted from fostering multilateralism to pursuing unilateral primacy. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the United States as the dominant global power, leading to the assumption that liberal democracy would spread worldwide without significant opposition. However, the post-9/11 “war on terror” further eroded internationalism, as Washington used its influence to pressure nations into supporting military campaigns without considering the long-term consequences for global relations.The global financial crisis of 2008 marked a turning point in the trajectory of international relations. As economic growth stagnated, governments prioritized domestic economic stability over global cooperation. The United States focused on bailing out financial institutions and protecting domestic markets, while China pursued large-scale infrastructure projects to sustain economic growth. The growing debt burdens of developing nations further fueled nationalist sentiments, as governments sought to reclaim economic control from international financial institutions. Beijing emerged as a key lender to many nations, providing an alternative to Western-controlled financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.Economic nationalism gained traction in the 2010s, with populist leaders advocating protectionist policies to shield their economies from globalization. In Europe, leaders like Orban criticized international institutions, blaming them for economic instability and declining national sovereignty. In the United States, Trump capitalized on these sentiments, framing his “America First” policy as a means to reclaim economic independence and protect American jobs.
During his first term, Trump embraced nationalism and great-power competition as central tenets of U.S. foreign policy. While President Barack Obama had sought cooperative engagement with China, Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy emphasized economic and military competition over global collaboration. The administration withdrew from key international agreements, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Paris Climate Agreement, signaling a retreat from multilateral commitments.Trump’s trade policies, particularly the imposition of tariffs on Chinese imports, escalated tensions between Washington and Beijing. While these measures aimed to reduce U.S. dependence on Chinese goods, they also increased consumer prices and disrupted global supply chains. Despite his rhetoric, Trump’s nationalist policies did not fundamentally alter global economic dynamics but instead contributed to a climate of uncertainty and instability.
Although Biden initially promised a departure from Trump’s “America First” approach, his administration has largely maintained key aspects of economic nationalism. While emphasizing alliances and partnerships, Biden has continued protectionist policies designed to counter China’s rise. Legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act reflect a broader trend toward state-led industrial policies, mirroring strategies employed by nationalist governments worldwide.The emergence of economic nationalism and great-power competition has reshaped the landscape of U.S. foreign policy. The transition from Roosevelt’s multilateralism to Trump’s nationalist agenda represents a fundamental shift in how the United States engages with the world. While Roosevelt sought to build an international order based on cooperation and collective security, the contemporary era prioritizes national interests over global stability.To reinvigorate its role as a leader in international affairs, the United States must reconsider its approach to foreign policy. Addressing transnational challenges such as climate change, economic inequality, and democratic backsliding requires a commitment to global cooperation rather than nationalist isolation. The lessons of history suggest that sustainable peace and prosperity depend on inclusive multilateralism rather than unilateral dominance. By broadening its strategic vision and embracing international collaboration, the United States can help shape a more stable and just world order in the 21st century.
