Leadership Chaos: How Will “Trumpism” Lead to a Decline in American Influence Globally?

In light of Donald Trump’s impulsive and unpredictable personality, coupled with his obsession with achieving results, he launched into his second term on January 20, 2025, by making numerous controversial decisions both domestically and internationally, all under the banner of “America First.” Despite the brief period since Trump entered the Oval Office, his decisions—particularly those regarding foreign policy—have sparked significant uproar and heightened uncertainty. These decisions have not only affected adversaries but have also extended to allies, raising questions about the potential negative repercussions for American influence on the global stage.

Trump’s Doctrine:

Throughout the 20th century, Washington recognized its responsibility on the global stage. Veteran American politician Henry Kissinger believed this role was aimed at creating a “moral consensus capable of making the pluralistic world innovative rather than destructive.” He emphasized that any sober perception of American interests “must consider the widespread concern for stability and peaceful change.” Thus, it is evident that the United States is not an empire in the traditional sense reflected by historical empires; American power relies not only on hard power but also on values, ideas, and institutions, which means it is based on an “inspiring model” that it has sought to polish and promote through its soft power.

In contrast, and based on the slogans “America First” and “Make America Great Again,” Trump made numerous contentious statements, such as those related to the Panama Canal, Greenland, and the Gaza Strip. He also made several controversial decisions, like withdrawing from the World Health Organization and imposing tariffs on both allies and adversaries. These moves can be interpreted through long-standing American philosophical and ideological frameworks such as “Manifest Destiny,” first termed in 1845, which views the expansion of U.S. territory across North America as preordained, or as an attempt to adopt a nationalistic approach to bolster American interests by reactivating the “Monroe Doctrine,” first articulated in 1823.

Negative Implications:

The Trumpian character now enveloping American foreign policy carries negative implications for U.S. global influence and could potentially lead to its decline, which can be clarified as follows:

1. Dimming of the American Liberal Model’s Luster: The United States has consistently asserted that its dominance and influence stem from the strength of the liberal model it espouses politically and economically, both domestically and internationally. However, it has become clear that this model is now being called into question and reevaluated by Trump. The situation is not merely that Trump is seen as responsible for the Capitol riot in January 2021, but from his first day in the White House, he has sought to settle scores with political opponents, aggressively attacking dissenters, the media, and civil servants, using some governmental agencies as tools for retribution. This behavior has raised concerns, as noted by writer Libby Winkler, regarding Washington’s commitment to “the principles it has long promoted.” This ties into American political scientist Joseph Nye’s assertion that American soft power relies, in part, on “how democracy is practiced at home.”

In contrast to analyses suggesting that successive U.S. presidents have built Washington’s global influence on the idea of “the collective progress of open markets and open societies,” which is essential for generating wealth and security for both Washington and other nations, Trump has sought to increase tariffs against allies and adversaries alike. For instance, Trump announced in early February 2025 tariffs of 25% on Mexico and Canada and 10% on China, before subsequently announcing a one-month delay for Mexico and Canada. Moreover, the U.S. administration confirmed that these increases could rise further if these countries took retaliatory measures. Alongside this, Trump expressed intentions to increase tariffs on steel and aluminum to cover all imports, effectively nullifying agreements with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and others.

Moreover, there are increasing indicators that pillars of American foreign policy are based more on hardline religious ideas rather than on values of freedom, law, and human rights. Not only has there been an adoption of the extreme right-wing Israeli government narrative, but the rising influence of evangelicals has also framed certain decisions and policies. This is evident in Trump’s administration’s support for the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, as well as discussions about annexing the West Bank under the guise of “Judea and Samaria.” The appointment of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as the U.S. ambassador to Israel clearly indicates this trend, as he previously stated, “There is no such thing as a Palestinian.”

2. Doubt in Washington’s Credibility as a Reliable Ally: For decades, the United States has relied on a network of allies and partners to bolster its strength and enhance its influence globally. This was highlighted by Hal Brands and Peter D. Feaver in their analysis titled, “What Are the Benefits of America’s Alliances?” published in the U.S. Army War College’s quarterly journal “Parameters” in Summer 2017. They explained that alliances provide geostrategic, political, diplomatic, and economic advantages that strengthen American power and achieve national goals, making Washington, as a superpower, “more influential.” This stands in stark contrast to Trump’s views that do not prioritize alliances and instead target allies with the same tools used against adversaries.

Trump’s hostile stance toward the European Union and NATO has strained relationships with key Washington allies. Max Bergmann, in his analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), remarked that while there have been historical disagreements in transatlantic relations, what the Trump administration is doing—such as tariffs, defense spending, and handling the Ukraine war—will “change these relationships forever” in a way that could lead Europe to “chart its own course.” He also noted that reaching a deal between the two sides of the Atlantic seems unlikely given Trump’s insistence on reshaping the partnership “in a way that Europe finds unacceptable.” Additionally, statements regarding the annexation of Greenland have raised questions about American defense commitments within NATO alongside desires to seize allies’ territories.

This situation extends to Canada and Mexico, which face harsh tariff decisions despite negotiating the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) a few years ago. Further desires to control the Panama Canal, despite the signed agreement between the countries, and forcing Colombia to accept undocumented migrants also reflect this trend. Similarly, Trump’s decisions to withdraw American troops from South Korea or openly abandon Taiwan could extend this state of affairs to Asia, potentially bolstering Chinese influence there. This scenario highlights rising probabilities of viewing Washington as an unreliable ally, prompting allies to take countermeasures, either by establishing regional or multilateral frameworks or through rapprochement with U.S. adversaries.

3. Shrinkage of Multidimensional American Engagement: For decades, the United States has relied on foreign aid to enhance its global influence across diverse areas. Former President John F. Kennedy stated that failure to meet foreign aid commitments could lead to “disaster,” imposing significant long-term costs that risk “the security and prosperity of the American nation.” This stands in stark opposition to Trump’s perspective, who accused the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) of “fraud,” deeming it managed by “a bunch of radical lunatics.” In that context, Trump decided to freeze the agency’s funding.

Given the substantial nature of American international aid, any changes in its operations resonate widely across the globe. Therefore, closing the USAID poses risks to global humanitarian initiatives, as programs addressing public health crises, malnutrition, human rights, environmental sustainability, education eradication, and conflict recovery face uncertainty, leading to potentially severe ramifications. For instance, ending U.S. aid to regions like the Horn of Africa could result in unrest, instability, and a significant increase in refugee flows.

Consequently, numerous local and international warnings have emerged that scaling back USAID operations entails threats to U.S. national security, as well as undermining Washington’s influence, interpreted by some analyses through a “vacuum logic.” This logic suggests that the void left by Washington’s withdrawal could enhance adversaries’ ability to capitalize on it. Michael Shifter, the former deputy director of USAID in Asia, argued that the Trump administration’s suspension of foreign aid allows China to expand its influence and that Russia may also seek to exploit the vacuum created by Washington’s retreat from foreign aid.

4. Undermining the Strength and Cohesion of the International Order: In recent years, the United States has accused its adversaries, China and Russia, of attempting to change the international order, labeling them as “revisionist” powers. This perspective is rooted in the current international order being a lever for American influence due to Washington’s status as the dominant superpower. Ironically, the current American administration is the one questioning this international order and undermining a role it has sought to bolster for many years. It has become evident that Trump does not believe in a rules-based international order; he sees the Western Hemisphere as an area of American influence, much like Beijing views Taiwan and Moscow views Ukraine.

In this context, Trump has made controversial statements that blatantly violate United Nations principles and international law, such as the acquisition of Greenland, the annexation of Canada, and treating Gaza as a “real estate deal,” along with calls for the displacement of Palestinians, which represents a call for ethnic cleansing. Trump went further by signing a decree imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court over arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Additionally, on his first day in office, Trump signed executive orders to withdraw from the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement. Thus, it is clear that Trump’s vision for the international order not only poses negative implications for its strength and cohesion but may also increasingly isolate the United States on significant global issues and perhaps enhance efforts to build a fairer international system free from American dominance.

In summary, Trump’s second term is expected to have adverse effects on the image of the United States and its global influence, driven by what seems to be a decline in trust caused by the president’s behavior as an unstable and impulsive leader. This occurs despite his continued focus on his objective of “restoring America’s golden age.” However, the extent to which American influence declines will depend on several factors, including Trump’s choice between maintaining a policy of chaos and noise or shifting toward more rational and cautious approaches, his reliance on the “madman theory” as a means to secure maximum gains and expected scopes of employment, his ability to recalibrate interaction dynamics in various arenas as an alternative to withdrawal, and ultimately, his adversaries’ capacity to exploit the decline in American influence to boost their own power.