Assessing the Implications of the Trump 2.0 Administration

President Donald J. Trump’s second administration has sparked significant debate over its foreign policy approach, particularly with its imposition of tariffs and the United States’ (US) withdrawal from various international agreements, such as demanding sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO).

As the Trump administration advances these policies, critics argue that such actions could have detrimental effects on world order. The key question, however, is whether the 80-year-old international order is heading toward disorder or transitioning into a new order.

The answer may depend on the reactions of US allies, adversaries, emerging powers, and the broader global community as Trump embraces a more power-centric political strategy—one that could either strengthen or weaken US influence.

The founding values central to US foreign policy are promoting freedom, supporting democracy, and protecting human rights, pursued across the world through bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, foreign assistance, public outreach, and economic sanctions.

The geopolitical implication of Washington’s new policies is already making waves worldwide as its Foreign Policy is driven by hard power strategies, such as trade wars and isolationism, which has strained US alliances, eroding trust among long-standing partners. Allies like Canada, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) members in Europe, and key partners in East Asia, including Japan and South Korea, are perplexed by the Trump adminisration’s direction.

Similarly, emerging powers, such as India in South Asia and Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Southeast Asia, and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East are grappling with the shifting dynamics. Meanwhile, Least Developed Countries (LDCs) like Nepal and Sri Lanka, along with many nations in the Global South are increasingly exploring alternatives to US partnerships. This transition has cast doubt on the efficacy of global institutions, such as the United Nations, as the US pivots toward more self-interested based policies.

A central debate in this context is whether Trump’s confidence is creating uncertainty on the global stage or if he himself is struggling with the complexities of shifting global dynamics.

Since his inauguration on 20 January 2025, Trump has issued 150 executive orders and presidential memoranda, signalling a bold, assertive shift in both domestic and foreign policy. His administration’s “America First” and “Make America Great Again” slogans encapsulate a broader agenda centred on nationalism, de-globalization, and multilateralism.

These policies span areas from immigration and the environment to technology, defence, trade, and social equity. As a result, the world has become increasingly disoriented by US actions, with the temporary suspension of foreign aid leaving millions in peril.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, ongoing peace negotiations, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington underscore the complex implications for global stability, both in Europe and South Asia. As the world enters uncharted waters, it faces a crossroads between structural change and the persistence of multilateralism.

Oval Office Diplomacy and Wide-reaching Implications

In his inaugural address, Trump underscored a bold and decisive approach to foreign policy, declaring his commitment to “prevent war-end war”, alluding to ongoing conflicts such as the war in Ukraine, hostilities in Gaza, and the crisis in the Red Sea. Trump’s strategy of leveraging US military strength alongside cutting-edge technology, and the influence of non-state actors signals a shift in global power dynamics.

His rhetoric, reminiscent of his 2017 stance, puts emphasis on his vision to build “the strongest military the world has ever seen,” aiming to measure success not only by battles won but by preventing future wars. However, his actions since taking office raise complex questions about the viability and impact of his approach.

One of the most contentious moments in recent times unfolded during a live-streamed diplomatic meeting between Presidents Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

What began as a high-stakes discussion quickly descended into chaos as Trump pressured Kyiv to accept a ceasefire under a controversial peace proposal.

The event took an even more dramatic turn as Russian President Vladamir Putin responded with a series of demands, making the prospects of a negotiated peace look bleak. While Putin did not outright reject the proposal, he appeared to use it as a strategic tactic to buy time, continuing to push Ukrainian forces back in the Kursk region.

The US plan, which notably proposed that Ukraine never join NATO, raised serious concerns among European leaders, who view such concessions as as a direct threat to regional security.

Meanwhile, in the Red Sea, the US has been engaging in a series of military actions against Houthi rebels backed by Iran, who have been targeting commercial shipping vessels. Trump responded to these acts with an unequivocal threat: “Hell will rain down upon you like nothing you have ever seen before.”

This aggressive stance underscores his administration’s shift toward using overwhelming force in international disputes, particularly when American interests are at stake. National Security Advisor Michael Waltz wchoed this approach, describing the airstrikes as a “decisive and powerful” move, signaling to Iran that the US is prepared to escalate if necessary.

Trump’s foreign policy also extends to the Arctic, with renewed efforts to annex Greenland, a region of strategic military and economic importance due to its vast mineral resources. Despite strong opposition from Greenland’s leadership and Denmark, Trump emphasized the territory’s importance for US national security, even warning that military force could be used to assert American control.

This move, like many others, highlights the growing trend of powerful states acting unilaterally, sidelining international organizations like the UN in pursuit of their interests. The Trump 2.0 administration’s foreign policy signals a world where global cooperation is increasingly sidelined, and actions are driven by national self-interest, challenging established norms and international law.

India and US Relations and Implications in South Asia

The strategic partnership between India and the US has grown significantly in recent years, particularly in the context of South Asia’s complex geopolitical landscape. China’s rising influence and the ongoing threat of terrorism in the region are central to this evolving relationship.

Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar’s attendance at Trump’s second inauguration and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit as the fourth Head of State to address the White House signal India’s intent to counterbalance China’s increasing assertiveness, particularly in Pakistan and along the India-China Himalayan border where Bhutan and Nepal also rest. India and the US have strengthened their collaboration, especially through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), which also includes Japan and Australia.

This alliance aims for a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP)” strategy for freedom of navigation, the rule of law, freedom from coercion, and respect for sovereignty, while fostering economic growth and connectivity. For the US and Allies of the Indo-Pacific, this also is interpreted as a counter China strategy with the ongoing China-US rivalry.

Counterterrorism remains another key factor in the growing US-India relationship, driven by shared concerns over cross-border terrorism, particularly from Pakistan-based militant groups. The US has supported India’s counterterrorism efforts with intelligence sharing, defense cooperation, and diplomatic pressure on Pakistan.

Additionally, Trump’s focus on reducing American military presence abroad has reshaped US engagement in South Asia, requiring India to play a more prominent role in regional stability. Consequently, India and the US are expected to collaborate more on maintaining security stability in Afghanistan that aligns with US interests in addition to addressing issues related to neighboring countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka for strategic stability.

Responding to a question about Bangladesh in the Oval Office, Trump said: “I’ll leave Bangladesh to the prime minister,” indicating Modi. The statement consoles the US’s strategic view on not just Bangladesh but other smaller South Asian nations including Nepal. It holds policy implications for other regions or sub-regions. It also means solidifying democracy. and emancipating South Asia from Chinese influence. 

As both nations face challenges from China and terrorism, their partnership has become a cornerstone of regional strategy, strengthening the need for closer diplomatic, defense, technology, economic, trade, and military cooperation.

Central to this is ‘Mission 500,’ an ambitious goal to elevate bilateral trade to 500 billion USD by 2030, alongside the revamped ‘India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (ICET).’ This initiative focuses on the transfer of strategic technologies such as AI, semiconductors, energy, and space, all aimed at securing a peaceful and stable South Asia.

According to Morgan Stanley, India is projected to become the world’s third-largest economy by 2028, reaching a US$5.7 trillion GDP, surpassing Germany. At the same time, in a recent appearance on the Fridman Podcast, Modi spoke positively emphasizing the importance of strengthening bilateral ties and said that normalcy has returned to the two countries’ border, even though much of it remains disputed with its main strategic competitor China.

Conclusion

The prospect of a wholly disengaged, self-focused US has troubling implications for world order. This marks a significant departure from traditional multilateralism, signaling a shift toward unilateral action and a focus on US national interests.

The Trump administration’s aggressive stance on issues like trade, military strength, and foreign interventions has raised fundamental questions about the future of the global order. With the imposition of tariffs, withdrawal from international agreements, and a reliance on hard power tactics, the US has strained its relationships with allies, and has complicated its global standing.

However, emerging powers such as India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and adversaries like China and Russia, have found opportunities in this shifting landscape. On the other hand, smaller nations and those in the Global South may seek new alliances to safeguard their interests.

An absence of realism, ignoring the warnings, or not considering the big picture for the long term regarding security concerns of both China and India, smaller states including Nepal will have to pay a heavy price bearing consequences of geopolitical incompetence. Never put all geopolitical eggs in one basket called the China and US rivalry.

With Trump’s policy of ‘strategic ambiguity’ in Europe and South Asia, it is easy to imagine Russia taking advantage of the situation in a bid to assert dominance over Europe through the use of threat of force. Likewise, there is a real possibility of China affirming itself more in South Asia, where it openly seeks dominance over India and the US.

There’s a stark difference between Trump’s interaction between Zelensky and Modi, as he humiliated one and made deals with the other. The challenges facing the US in South Asia, particularly with regard to China’s growing influence and the ongoing threat of terrorism, have further shaped the dynamics of India-US relations.

India’s strategic importance while pursuing ‘all alignment’ in countering China’s rise, and addressing South Asian regional security issues that align closely with US interests, is creating a more robust partnership. As both countries confront these challenges, their cooperation on defense, counterterrorism, and regional stability becomes increasingly essential.

However, the unpredictability and boldness of Trump’s foreign policy, as demonstrated by his actions like engagement with Ukraine and the Red Sea crisis, raises concerns about the long-term viability of his strategies.

With global institutions becoming increasingly ineffective and the international order in flux, the world stands at a crossroads, where the future of diplomacy and global cooperation remains uncertain. The decisions made during Trump’s second term will have far-reaching consequences, not only for the US but for the broader global balance of power.

As reliability and diplomatic confidence of traditional allies reduce, the rules of geopolitics, however, remain very clear: all great powers including China, India, and the US will put their interests first, never making sacrifices, even for the best of friends or the closest allies.