Special Election Update: Friday, November 8, 2024:

Trump’s Second Term: Allies Brace as America First Meets Global Reality

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF):

The Associated Press has declared Donald Trump the winner of the 2024 election, sealing his second term with an apparent electoral landslide of 300+ votes. While this decisive victory might ease some fears of domestic unrest, its international impact is seismic. Trump’s return signals a full-throttle reversion to his America First agenda—an approach that prioritizes U.S. national interests over traditional alliances and tilts policy inward, putting America’s needs first and global engagement second. The initial responses from world leaders have been diplomatic, but European allies are watching closely. Those leaders are worried about what this second term means for NATO, transatlantic ties, and their own security.

Though Trump claimed victory on election night, he won’t formally take office until January 2025. In the meantime, the world is bracing for what his re-election could mean on the global stage. European leaders, facing new security challenges on their eastern borders, are preparing for the implications of a possibly reduced U.S. role. China, meanwhile, may see an opening in Taiwan, testing whether this administration’s focus will truly stay stateside. The re-election also sharpens the resolve of a growing coalition of authoritarian powers—Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China—all of whom may view the U.S. under Trump as an opportunity to push their agendas further.

It’s worth remembering that despite the spotlight on this shift, American foreign policy tends to evolve gradually. While Trump’s re-election stirs up a flurry of speculation, the core of the global order may remain more resilient than those domestic and international anxieties suggest.

America First Policy: Repercussions for Global Alliances

Trump’s America First policy, now reinforced by his re-election, is set to charge forward, signaling an even deeper commitment to a fiercely nationalistic foreign policy. America First isn’t about playing nice with other nations; it’s about rethinking U.S. foreign engagement with a laser focus on what’s best for the American economy and security—period. In practical terms, that means scaling back on costly international obligations and sticking close to home.

We have already seen how this approach strains traditional alliances. During Trump’s first term, he openly questioned NATO’s value and called out allies for not pulling their weight on defense spending. If anything, a second term could intensify those challenges, potentially leaving allies uncertain about the U.S.’s commitment as a reliable partner.

European allies, especially those in NATO, are understandably uneasy about this direction-particularly as Russian aggression shows no signs of easing. For these countries, America’s retreat from multilateral commitments is not just a shake-up; it’s a security threat. Eastern European nations along the Russian border, for instance, may feel compelled to step up their defense efforts without counting on American backup.

While America First has a strong pull with many American voters, it creates a strategic rift for countries relying on U.S. support under the post-World War II security structure. This leaves NATO allies at a crossroads: will they scramble to fill the gap, perhaps by enhancing EU defense capabilities? Or will Trump’s re-election nudge them toward new alliances to counter rising threats from Russia and China?

European Leaders’ Cautious Congratulation: Underlying Fears for Security

European leaders have publicly congratulated President Trump on his re-election, but beneath these diplomatic courtesies lie serious concerns over what his America First stance could mean for European security. As Trump intensifies his focus on national interests, European nations—especially those near Russia—are likely worried about being left to handle their own defense. For NATO-dependent countries, any hint of U.S. withdrawal would force Europe to explore new security options and ramp up its own defense capabilities.

Eastern European NATO members, acutely aware of Russian aggression, face an especially tense reality. The continent’s main military players (Germany, France, and the UK) may accelerate defense collaborations and boost their own military budgets, preparing for a future where American backing is less reliable. However, these changes take time. If a crisis does flares up during Trump’s second term, Europe could find itself exposed.

Trump’s re-election also intensifies a critical balancing act for European leaders: managing diplomatic ties with the U.S. while preparing for the possibility of reduced American support. If Europe senses that its security needs are slipping down America’s priority list, countries may push forward with plans for a semi-independent European defense union. The drive toward an EU-led defense force, already underway, could gain new urgency as Europe braces itself for a more self-reliant security future.

China and Taiwan: The Risks of Aggressive Posturing

With Trump’s renewed focus on putting American interests first, China’s actions in East Asia—especially regarding Taiwan—could become a defining test of U.S. foreign policy resolve. Trump’s first term set the tone with trade confrontations and tech restrictions, establishing a competitive and sometimes adversarial relationship. Now, with a second term ahead, China may see a chance to pursue its regional ambitions, interpreting America First as a potential sign that the U.S. is reluctant to commit to overseas conflicts. Trump’s claim of a war-free presidency resonates strongly with his base, and China may be inclined to probe whether that restraint still holds.

While an imminent invasion is not expected, there are signs that the Chinese Communist Party could surprise U.S. defense strategists by acting sooner than predicted—perhaps by early 2026. This timeline could challenge U.S. military leaders, who are currently focusing on 2027 as the year to be fully prepared to defend Taiwan. Meanwhile, China’s military modernization continues unabated, aimed squarely at bringing Taiwan under its control according to its One China policy. If China senses any wavering in U.S. support, it might interpret this as an open door to test America’s limits in East Asia.

Taiwan’s strategic significance is critical not only to the U.S. but also to regional allies like Japan and South Korea. Any shift in Taiwan’s status could send shockwaves through the region’s power dynamics, destabilizing the balance and straining U.S. alliances. If China moves aggressively toward Taiwan, Trump’s administration will face a serious dilemma. The administration will either need to reaffirm U.S. commitment to Taiwan, risking direct confrontation with China, or step back, allowing China to expand its influence but potentially alienating allies.

Trump’s stance—focused largely on domestic priorities—creates an ambiguity that Beijing may see as an opportunity. However, this ambiguity is tempered by the long-standing U.S. commitment to deterrence in the region, making it a complex chessboard where both players are waiting to see who will make the next move.

The New Axis: Reactions from Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China

A second Trump term draws mixed but largely optimistic reactions from the emerging axis of authoritarian states—Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. Each of these nations has unique ambitions, and Trump’s America First stance may play to their advantage by reducing U.S. influence, giving them more room to maneuver in their respective regions. Here’s how each player might approach Trump’s re-election:

• Russia: President Vladimir Putin is likely to welcome Trump’s renewed skepticism toward NATO and traditional transatlantic commitments. Trump’s reluctance to confront Russia directly could embolden Moscow’s actions in Ukraine and other parts of Eastern Europe. Putin will likely view a second Trump term as an opportunity to further solidify Russia’s influence, especially if the U.S. pressures NATO to shoulder more of its own defense. Trump’s stated intention to push for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine could lead to a diplomatic stalemate—potentially freezing the conflict on terms favorable to Moscow.

• Iran: With U.S.-Iran relations already tense, a second Trump term may embolden Iran to intensify its regional influence efforts. Although sanctions have hit Iran’s economy hard, an America First focus could suggest the U.S. is less inclined toward further entanglements in the Middle East. Iran might use this as a signal to expand its influence across Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria with fewer fears of direct U.S. intervention. However, Tehran would still need to tread carefully regarding its posture toward Israel, given Trump’s strong support for America’s closest ally in the region.

• North Korea: North Korea likely sees Trump’s re-election as a green light to continue its nuclear and missile development with minimal risk of harsh repercussions. While Trump’s first term saw an unusual level of direct engagement with Kim Jong-un, North Korea understands that Trump’s focus remains primarily on domestic interests. This perception could encourage Pyongyang to advance its military capabilities, especially if it avoids actions that would provoke the U.S. directly. With growing ties to Russia, North Korea might use the next four years to strengthen its military standing, posing a greater threat to South Korea and Japan.

• China: China’s position is more nuanced. While Trump’s trade policies have posed economic challenges for China, Beijing may see America First as a cue that the U.S. will step back from its strategic role in Asia. China could seize this as an opportunity to pursue its regional ambitions, particularly through its Belt and Road Initiative and territorial goals in the South China Sea. Trump’s focus on U.S. economic gains might give Beijing the breathing room it needs to strengthen its global influence.

Together, these authoritarian states may aim to weaken U.S. influence and advance a multipolar world order that subtly undermines the Western-led global structure. By narrowing its focus to domestic priorities the Trump administration might inadvertently open the door to such shifts. However, established checks and balances are likely to prevent dramatic changes in global dynamics.

A Measured Perspective on the U.S. Presidential Elections and Foreign Policy

Trump’s re-election signals a renewed emphasis on America First, but history shows that U.S. foreign policy is far more resilient to change than it might seem. The U.S. foreign policy machine is deeply entrenched in institutional norms that prioritize long-term strategic objectives, regardless of who’s in the Oval Office. While Trump may adjust the tone and approach of U.S. global engagement, the overall direction of American influence is likely to hold steady.

For allies and observers around the world, the lesson is clear: while U.S. political transitions are significant, they usually steer foreign policy gradually, not drastically. Key allies in Europe, Asia, and beyond are bracing for potential shifts but recognize that the core principles guiding U.S. foreign policy are firmly rooted. This enduring structure provides reassurance that even as the president shapes policy, the larger framework of U.S. governance prevents sudden or destabilizing turns.

Ultimately, while immediate adjustments and recalibrations are inevitable, the broader international order is likely to stay stable. Long-standing alliances and a resilient global framework ensure that the system remains balanced, transcending the influence of any one leader.

Stay safe out there