- 'It essentially means in a lot of cases, the US, the rest of the world will be on its own in a way that it hasn't been since before World War II,' says geopolitical analyst Ryan Bohl
- 'Trump is only going to get involved in those issues on a basis … of do I benefit from this economically or politically,' says Scott Lucas, professor of US and international politics
ISTANBUL
As Donald Trump marks his first 100 days back in the White House, analysts say his administration is steering a sharp shift in US domestic and foreign policy — one that emphasizes national interest and bilateral ties over multilateralism, signaling a possible long-term recalibration of America's role on the world stage.
Early signs suggest a US foreign policy increasingly centered on national interest, economic self-gain, and bilateral ties — often at the expense of multilateral agreements and long-standing alliances.
Geopolitical analyst Ryan Bohl says the Trump administration marks a clear departure from the globalist leadership role the US played in the post-World War II era.
“It essentially means in a lot of cases, the US, the rest of the world will be on its own in a way that it hasn't been since before World War II,” said Bohl. Under Trump, he adds, the US is “less engaged and less focused, less willing to flex its muscles to resolve issues that are not core US interests.”
A rewired world order
Some foreign policy experts see Trump’s return as accelerating a move away from the US’ traditional post-World War II leadership role.
“Trump is trying to fundamentally change the world order,” said M. Steven Fish, a political science professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
Fish and others believe this opens space for other powers — particularly China — to play a larger global role.
In this emerging order, Fish sees China stepping into the vacuum. “What we're seeing is probably a world order that will be led by China,” he said. “A world order in which China perhaps even will become the most trustworthy guardian of the financial system.”
Shifting alliances
Trump’s first few months back in office have already featured a sharp pivot in US global engagement — away from traditional allies like the EU and toward bilateral dealings.
Relations with Europe have frayed since Trump’s return. His administration has said it no longer wants to be the primary guarantor of European security, saying some NATO members spend too little on defense.
The time has come “for Europe to stand on its own feet” on defense, Vice President JD Vance had said in an opinion editorial run by Financial Times, pointing to "deep and lasting cuts" to European defense budgets that Washington has had to counterbalance.
For Bohl, the move is strategic. Trump’s attempt “to get the Europeans to rearm is a significant push to try to get them to be more of a counterweight to Russia and China so that the US doesn't have to shoulder that burden by itself,” he said.
Scott Lucas, a professor of US and international politics at the University College Dublin's Clinton Institute, says Trump’s approach is driven by personal "benefit" rather than strategic alliances.
“Trump is only going to get involved in those issues on a basis … of do I benefit from this economically or politically,” said Lucas.
That, he added, marks a break from the decades-old US approach rooted in the rule of law and global stability.
Redrawing the trade map
Among the most dramatic shifts under Trump has been in global trade. Through a wave of tariffs affecting nearly every major trade partner, he has redefined the terms of economic engagement.
Supporters argue these measures address long-standing trade imbalances and protect US industries. “The US has been ripped off for years and years,” Trump has said, defending his policies as overdue corrections to unfair trade practices.
“No unilateral reduction in tariffs against China,” he has vowed, adding that trade relief would hinge on whether Beijing strikes a deal with his administration.
Critics, however, warn of the possible economic ramifications.
“This is the most significant and impactful thing that he has done much faster than many observers expected,” Bohl said. “All of these countries, from China to the EU, are all having to redo the way that their trade networks work.”
Bohl noted the ripple effects of Trump’s tariff policies, saying they have stirred global "uncertainty" over whether the measures will stick.
A nationalist turn
Withdrawing from global accords and international bodies has become a hallmark of Trump’s foreign policy.
He has pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement, cut ties with the World Health Organization, and scaled back commitments to global security frameworks, framing these decisions as prioritizing American sovereignty and interests.
“Trump is acting like the isolationist, abandoning our allies at the same time,” said Fish, who sees echoes of 19th-century great power politics.
“It’s possible perhaps to discern a kind of old 19th-century great power nationalism, where the great powers carve up the world,” he said. That, he added, could include renewed Russian claims over the former Soviet sphere — or even parts of Europe.
Lucas says Trump’s unilateral style has blurred the lines between traditional democratic leadership and "authoritarian" tendencies in the US. Trump appears much more of an “autocrat,” he said.
The Trump administration argues its approach reflects strong executive leadership aimed at reducing government overreach, cutting waste, and returning power to local communities — part of a broader effort to “drain the swamp” and streamline the federal bureaucracy.
'Talk of expansionism'
Analysts have also flagged what they describe as Trump’s stated intentions of adding territory to the US, from suggesting it acquire Greenland, to floating the notion of Canada becoming the 51st state, to raising the idea of asserting control over the Panama Canal.
Before returning to office, Trump told reporters that Greenland is “a wonderful place. We need it for international security.”
On Canada, he said joining the US would bring it economic stability and protect against external threats like “Russian and Chinese ships.”
Bohl believes such "talk of territorial expansionism" are more symbolic than serious. “They’re not terribly strategic in the way that they are being implemented,” he said. “He's not serious at the moment about moving into Panama or Greenland.”
Instead, Bohl views the rhetoric as part of a broader narrative of competition for resources, arguing that there appears to be a lack of coherent policy for actual territorial expansion.
Peacemaker or power broker?
Trump has repeatedly styled himself as a dealmaker who can end conflicts through bold personal diplomacy. He pushed for a ceasefire in Gaza before returning to office and has spoken about ending the war in Ukraine.
While some see this as part of his deal making style, others question the substance of his proposals.
Lucas sees this more as a bid for legacy, suggesting the motivation is partly to rival Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.
“But when it comes to resolving conflicts such as the war in Ukraine, his strategy has leaned toward personal outreach rather than multilateral negotiation,” Lucas said.
Fish is more direct. He argues that Trump’s approach on Ukraine aligns too closely with Russia’s position, seeking to "hand Crimea over to Russia legally to allow Russia to keep the territories that it now occupies, to demilitarize Ukraine, which means dismantling Ukraine's military, to ... seek Zelenskyy’s resignation."
“This can't possibly be the basis for peace. The Ukrainians will never accept it. The Europeans, whose own security is at stake in the face of Russian imperialism, will never accept it either. Most of the world won't.”
But Trump says he just wants to see an end to the "savage conflict."
In an address at Congress, he proclaimed: "Two thousand people have been killed every single week ... I want it to stop."
