It’s the ‘Day After’ the Trump victory—and time for the rest of the world to take stock. Should the world be terrified of an America gone wild or look forward to an America in retreat—and the end of empire? The answers may surprise you. In part one, we look toward the future of Pax Americana—the age of US hegemony. Part two asks: Will Washington remain India’s BFF—or turn into our worst frenemy?
Editor’s note: Last week, we did a series on the US election—and the results. Part one looked at why the election is so close—despite Trump’s innumerable, umm, deficiencies. Part two had everything you needed to know about the key battlefields in the election. Part three explained why a convicted felon facing multiple indictments beat Kamala Harris. We are hoping to be entirely done with the US and Trump by the end of this two-part series… pray for us!
The bad news for Americans…
There is a ton of reporting on what Trump’s ascendancy means for Americans—legal and illegal. We are not looking at the domestic angle, but here’s the TLDR version: It is great news for very rich people (hello, lower corporate taxes and regulation). It could be good news for Wall Street (but beware the high import tariffs. It is 100% terrible news for women (See: “your body, my choice”) and people of colour (see: racism) and immigrants (see: mass deportations). It’s also terrible news for the environment (see: almost every Trump plan).
Reading list: If you want more on all of the above, check out these links:
- New York Times has the best summary of all Trump agenda items—domestic and foreign.
- NBC News offers a handy overview—on taxes, tariffs, and immigration—if you need more.
- Reuters has Wall Street’s hopes and fears.
- The Guardian has the upside for Big Tech.
- Bloomberg News via Deccan Herald reports on the immediate surge in incel rhetoric—and AFP via The Hindu has more on the future of abortion rights.
- CNN has more on the ‘quiet’ preparations for mass deportations.
- The worst case scenario is summed up in this BBC News overview of the Project 2025 wishlist.
- Vox explains why a second Trump presidency is an “existential threat” to American democracy.
- CNN has his plans to remake (gut) the US government—and Elon Musk’s role in doing so.
A ‘back to the future’ USA
Donald Trump represents a return to the past—the United States of America that endured between its birth in 1776 and 1941. This is the America of George Washington—unwilling to ‘entangle’ itself in ‘Old World’ conflicts. This is the America that had zero interest in being the ‘leader of the free world’—including fighting Adolf Hitler. Not until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor—and posed a direct threat to US territory.
But, but, but: This ‘isolationist’ America also single-mindedly pursued its economic interests overseas—to feed its “insatiable commercial appetite.” This America always puts its interests first—above those of friends—and those interests are defined entirely in terms of profit. Of course, with Trump at the helm, the nation’s ‘interests’ are often substituted with his own.
A good example: of Trump’s worldview is his remark on Taiwan: "You know, Taiwan, they stole our chip business, OK? They don't pay us money for the protection, you know? The mob makes you pay money, right?" The more polite version: “Taiwan should pay us for defence. You know, we’re no different than an insurance company.”
In other words, if Taipei wants “protection” from China, it has to buy more US weapons and set up AI chip manufacturing plants in the US. Simply ‘defending democracy’ or foiling a foe (China) is no longer good value for Trump’s America’s money.
It’s not just about Trump: For East Asia Forum, Yale’s Susan Thornton argues that Trump’s worldview reflects that of great many Americans:
In contrast to other empires, which tended to fall apart slowly over an extended period, Americans themselves have decided they no longer want to bear the burdens and distractions of global hegemony… The US electorate has been consistently ahead of its politicians in its rejection of the role of ‘world policeman’.
Pax Americana is ending because Americans no longer have the appetite for empire—at least not the kind that requires continual, expensive tending.
But, but, but: The Project 2025—supposedly a blueprint for Trump 2.0—is all about “restoring” American machismo—with a difference:
[Co-author Christopher] Miller.. wants to prevent China from subordinating Taiwan or allies like the Philippines, South Korea and Japan, thus upsetting the “balancing coalition … designed to prevent Beijing’s hegemony over Asia”. While the US tackles what Project 2025 presents as Beijing’s belligerence, Miller wants US allies to “step up”, some helping it to take on China, others taking more of a lead in “dealing with threats from Russia in Europe, Iran, the Middle East, and North Korea”
This version wants to ‘make America great again’ in the world—but with allies footing the bill. Unfortunately, for the MAGA crowd, at least some of these countries may instead choose the cheaper path—to make peace with the dragon/bear at their door instead.
Is this the end of NATO?
Yes and no. Trump has made it clear that he has no interest in spending US dollars on military commitments—not unless America gets something in return. That ‘something’ being hard cash—not some esoteric return like loyalty, friendship etc. So what would that look like? One example:
Speaking at a campaign rally… [Trump] said he told an unnamed leader of a “big country” that is part of NATO that he would “encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” with nations that don’t spend sufficiently on defence.
Trump may not end NATO—but he will most certainly neutralise its muscle—especially in the context of the Ukraine war. The Europeans may be left to fend with the Russian bear by themselves.
Will Europe choose atmanirbharta? Apart from Donald’s threats, Europe is also rethinking the wisdom of relying on an unstable friend—whose mood swings wildly from one president to another. In the lead up to the election, Polish PM Donald Tusk said:
Some claim that the future of Europe depends on the American elections, while it depends first and foremost on us. Whatever the outcome, the era of geopolitical outsourcing is over.
In the wake of Trump’s victory, Tusk has already sprung into action—scheduling meetings with key NATO leaders:
The Polish prime minister said that the "new political landscape" following Trump's reelection in the U.S. is “a serious challenge for everyone” especially if the presidents of Russia and the U.S. reach an agreement on Ukraine without Kyiv being involved.
Reminder: Poland and other East European states will be at the frontline of any Russian expansion.
Data to note: A pre-election survey found that Europeans overwhelmingly preferred Kamala Harris as president. Even those who voted for rightwing parties thought he’d make a ‘terrible’ president.
Defunding everything: It may be difficult for Trump to entirely walk away from NATO, but he will almost certainly gut US contributions to international institutions—from the UN to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. What remains to be seen: Whether Russia and/or China will use the funding shortfall to extend their influence—as they already have in Africa.
Make Russia ‘greater’ again
Given his cost-counting approach to foreign policy, Trump is strongly opposed to giving any more military aid to Ukraine—and “suggested that Kyiv could be pressured into a truce”—on Moscow’s terms: “Russia should keep the territory it has occupied and the surviving rump of Ukraine should not be allowed to join Nato or another foreign alliance.” Then there’s the famous bromance between Donald and Vlad—which may offer Moscow even greater advantage:
Putin thinks Trump is soft on Russia and will roll over to give him a great deal on Ukraine – cutting military support to Ukraine and lifting sanctions on Russia. I think Putin looks at Trump and sees a mirror image of himself, an authoritarian, sociopath. He likely thinks he understands Trump.
Quote to note: This is how Former Aussie PM Malcolm Turnbull described Trump’s interactions with Putin: “[H]e’s like the 12-year-old boy who goes to high school and meets the captain of the football team. ‘My hero.’ It’s really creepy.” OTOH, multiple investigations have shown that Putin has also been very kind to Trump’s business interests. So that schoolboy infatuation may be yet another expression of Donald’s love for, well, himself.
A quick aside on Gaza: Those wondering about Trump’s Israel policy should probably look to the $200 million business deal he cut with the Saudis in March. While there is talk of son-in-law Jared Kushner “negotiating” with Crown Prince Salman—Riyadh is now insisting on an independent Palestinian state. So for all of Bibi Netanyahu’s delight at his buddy’s return, the real question could be whether Saudi Arabia’s generosity—present and future—will win the day. Unless, of course, Israel is the sole exception to Trump’s profit/loss calculus…
The rise of a ‘multipolar’ world?
As we noted above, Trump defines US power almost solely as commercial clout–being the big guy who calls the shots in any ‘deal’. With Washington abdicating the traditional superpower role, it may be spell the end of Pax Americana:
Should Trump return, it could trigger a chaotic reaction in international affairs, in which the US plays a central role. Without the possibility of a third term, his policies will make Washington increasingly viewed by allies as unreliable. They may wait out Trump’s term, hoping for a return to normalcy after four years… As Trump tries to “make America great again”, the world might seek stability by simply disengaging with the US.
All of which creates the perfect window for Moscow and Beijing to expand and cement their influence—ensuring the irretrievable step toward a post-American world.
The shape of multipolarity: The United States will of course remain the singlemost powerful economy—with a massive market, favoured currency, great private wealth and at the head of tech innovation. Neither Russia nor China can cow it into submission—nor will they need to. In this Cold War, post-Trump America will no longer pose a threat—unlike the first:
Such a United States would, from its citadel, project power selectively and only in relation to strictly defined interests and narrowly couched objectives. It would have few, if any, alliances… A Eurasian hegemon would be satisfied with such a world order, pleased that a materially-focused United States, which was more interested in making money than waging war, would not be an obstacle to its strategic designs, unless it were to be threatened directly.
Of course, this also means there won’t be an heir to the superpower throne:
Today’s rump Russia and post-Maoist China are conventional authoritarian dictatorships, representing no model that can be exported and no secular faith, even if other countries view them as markets or sources of investment or counterbalances to overweening Western power.
But, but, but: Both Moscow and Beijing are indeed interested in projecting military power—at least in their neighbourhood. A disengaged—even delusional—Trump may be exactly what they need:
When asked in a recent interview whether he would intervene militarily if Xi blockaded Taiwan, [Trump] responded, “I wouldn’t have to, because he respects me.” That’s narcissism, not deterrence… Once appeased in Ukraine, Putin may very well rebuild his army with the help of China, North Korea, and Iran, and then move on to his next victim—say, Georgia or Poland. Xi could be emboldened to invade Taiwan, or at least spark a crisis over the island to extract concessions from a US president who has already suggested that he won’t fight.
It may sound like ‘sky is falling’ hysteria—but all bets are off when Trump is in charge.
Point to note: The Trump doctrine is already giving comfort to America’s enemies. China just reasserted its claim to vast swathes of the South China Sea—near the Philippines.
The bottomline: Former US ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder writes: “[Trump] has long seen alliances as protection rackets, where a partnership’s value to the U.S. is how much it gets paid rather than the peace and security it provides.” What does that mean for Trump’s dear friend Modi-ji? The bad news for New Delhi lies not in Trump’s plans for the world—but his plans for America. We explain why tomorrow—in the second and last part of this series on Donald & the World.
Reading list
TIME offers a good overview of what to expect in Trump part two. Ivo Daalder in Politico mourns the end of Pax Americana. Al Jazeera looks at what Project 2025 means for the world. The Guardian and Politico EU have more on the implications for Europe. This older New Statesman analysis offers a very different take—arguing we’re in the midst of version 3.0 of the American empire. This South China Morning Post column explains why the US retreat is a good thing. We didn’t get into the Middle East at length—but for the most interesting takes, read the Middle East Council round-up of expert views and this upbeat TIME magazine take on the Trump effect.
