By. Mazi. Godson. Azu.
The Trump presidency marked a disruptive moment in global politics, challenging liberal institutionalism while reviving a muscular, transactional form of realism. Through treaty withdrawals, trade wars, and strategic confrontation, the United States sought to reassert primacy in an increasingly multipolar world. This article examines whether Trump’s foreign policy represented a retreat into isolationism or a recalibration of hegemonic power. In doing so, it rethinks realism in contemporary geopolitics and poses a central question: whose power is being restored, exercised, or contested in the re-emergence of the American superpower order?
Trump as a Systemic Disruptor
Donald Trump did not merely inherit the post–Cold War liberal order; he openly contested it. His presidency exposed deep tensions between global governance norms and state-centric power politics. While critics portrayed his approach as erratic or anti-global, supporters framed it as a long-overdue realist correction to decades of strategic overreach and asymmetric globalization.
Trump’s foreign policy forces a re-examination of realism itself—not as a classical balance-of-power theory, but as economic nationalism fused with geopolitical coercion, where sovereignty, leverage, and transactional advantage take precedence over institutional commitments.
Treaties and the Politics of Strategic Withdrawal
Trump’s withdrawal from major multilateral agreements—including the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty—signaled a rejection of constraint-based leadership.
From a realist standpoint, treaties are instruments of power rather than moral obligations. Under Trump, they were treated as:
- Tools that must deliver clear relative gains
- Constraints to be discarded when they dilute sovereignty
- Leverage points for renegotiation rather than guarantees of stability
This approach reflected offensive realism: power is maximized not through adherence to rules, but through freedom of strategic action.
The key question remains:
Was this a retreat from leadership—or a deliberate effort to redefine leadership on unilateral terms?
Trade Wars as Geopolitical Weapons
Trump’s trade wars—most notably with China—recast trade from a mechanism of cooperation into an arena of strategic competition. Tariffs became tools of statecraft rather than instruments of economic adjustment.
Under Trump, trade policy:
- Treated economic interdependence as a vulnerability
- Linked trade deficits directly to national security
- Weaponized tariffs to discipline allies and rivals alike
This approach aligns with neo-mercantilist realism, where wealth and power are inseparable. The U.S.–China trade war was never about steel or soybeans alone; it was about technological supremacy, supply-chain control, and future dominance in the global economy.
Geopolitics and the Return of Great-Power Competition
Trump’s National Security Strategy explicitly identified China and Russia as revisionist powers, marking a formal end to post–Cold War optimism. Great-power competition returned to the center of global politics—not as an abstract theory, but as an organizing principle of policy.
Key features of Trump’s geopolitical realism included:
- Reduced emphasis on democracy promotion
- A preference for bilateral power bargains
- Acceptance of spheres of influence
- Strategic ambiguity toward traditional allies
NATO was not abandoned, but it was redefined. Collective security became increasingly transactional, with cost-sharing and burden-balancing replacing ideological solidarity.
Rethinking Realism: Old Theory, New Instruments
Trumpism does not fit neatly into classical realism. Instead, it represents a hybrid realism that blends traditional power politics with modern economic and technological tools.
Drawing on core realist thinkers:
- Hans Morgenthau emphasized national interest defined in terms of power.
- Kenneth Waltz focused on how the distribution of capabilities shapes state behavior.
- John Mearsheimer argued that great powers seek dominance and resist rivals’ rise.
- Neoclassical realists highlight the role of domestic politics in shaping strategic choices.
Trump’s innovation was not theoretical but practical: the extension of realism into trade, technology, data, energy, and industrial policy as primary instruments of power.
Redefining Power: America First and the End of Liberal Primacy
For much of the post-war era, American leadership was embedded in a rules-based order sustained by alliances and institutions. Under Trump, that order was not merely challenged by rising powers—it was questioned by the United States itself.
“America First” did not signify withdrawal from the world, but a reorientation of leadership toward hard national interest and immediate leverage. The result was an acceleration of great-power competition and a fragmentation of the old order, as alternative power centers gained confidence and space.
Power, in this emerging system, is increasingly diffuse, transactional, and contested—forcing allies and rivals alike to rethink their strategic assumptions.
Regional and Global Implications
Europe
Confidence in U.S. reliability weakened amid transactional diplomacy, accelerating debates on European strategic autonomy in defense and trade. The EU now balances dependence on NATO with a growing desire for economic and security independence, particularly in navigating U.S.–China rivalry.
Key takeaway: Europe must reconcile deterrence with autonomy.
Africa
“America First” signals a shift from development-driven engagement to commercially oriented partnerships. While this may unlock private investment, it also risks conditional relationships. African states increasingly hedge between U.S. and Chinese offers to maximize advantage.
Key takeaway: Africa’s agency is central to avoiding dependency while securing growth.
The Global South
Skepticism toward U.S. leadership is growing, while alternative frameworks—BRICS, ASEAN partnerships, and South–South cooperation—gain momentum. Economic nationalism complicates multilateral cooperation, even as multipolarity opens new strategic options.
Key takeaway: Multipolarity offers opportunity, but at the cost of fragmentation.
Whose Power? The Core Question
The re-emergence of American superpower order under Trump raises a fundamental issue: power for whom?
- State power over multilateral institutions
- Executive power over diplomatic and bureaucratic processes
- Corporate-national power over global markets
- Domestic political power framed as national revival
“America First” was less about disengagement and more about redistributing power away from global institutions and back toward sovereign control.
Conclusion: The Trump Doctrine as a Structural Turning Point
Trump did not dismantle American power; he redefined how it is exercised. His presidency marks a structural turning point in international relations, where realism re-emerged not as theory, but as practice.
The enduring legacy is not disorder, but a profound question the world can no longer avoid:
If power is no longer shared through institutions,
who controls it and at what cost to global stability?
Suggested Keywords
Trump Doctrine; Realism; Trade Wars; Geopolitics; American Hegemony; Power Transition; Economic Nationalism
Written by
Mazi Godson Azu
Director, CM Centre for Leadership and Good Governance (UK)
UK-based International Relations and Geopolitics Analyst. Convener Annual London Political Summit and Awards.
