Dr Varinder Sharma
drvarindersharmabjp@gmail.com
Donald Trump’s second-term political project, built around the idea of restoring national primacy through uncompromising “America First” policies, represents one of the most ambitious attempts in modern history to reshape not only domestic governance but also the global strategic balance. His ambition has gone far beyond conventional policy correction or partisan governance; instead, it has sought to re-engineer the relationship between state power, global institutions, trade systems, and alliance structures. Trump’s core belief-that nations must prioritise sovereign interests over multilateral commitments-has increasingly influenced political thinking worldwide. While critics view his approach as destabilising and polarising, supporters see it as a long-overdue correction to what they perceive as decades of global overreach at the expense of domestic prosperity and national identity. The speed, scale, and intensity of his second-term decisions have convinced many observers that his objective is not incremental reform but structural transformation of how global power is exercised and negotiated. His administration has focused on shrinking federal agencies, reducing regulatory frameworks, and redirecting state spending toward domestic economic priorities. The broader ideological message being projected globally is that strong executive leadership, if aligned with nationalist economic planning, can rapidly alter the trajectory of a nation’s economic and geopolitical standing.
Trade policy has become the most visible instrument of Trump’s transformation agenda. Unlike his predecessors, who raided Iraq, Afghanistan directly and Libya and Syria indirectly, Trump, the magician, has established America’s authority without army invasions. The aggressive tariff strategy – applied across allies and adversaries alike – has fundamentally altered global trade expectations. International forecasts suggest the global economy has shown resilience despite tariff disruptions, indicating that global trade systems are adapting rather than collapsing outright. These outcomes reflect the central paradox of Trump’s strategy: disruption creates economic uncertainty, but it also forces structural adjustments across global markets. In Trump’s ideological framework, disruptions are often portrayed as necessary transitional shocks required to rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity and reduce strategic dependence on geopolitical competitors. This framing has influenced other political leaders globally who are increasingly adopting domestic-first economic narratives.
The U.S. operation in Venezuela in early 2026 became one of the most dramatic demonstrations of Trump’s hard-power doctrine when American forces captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife during a military raid tied to terrorism, drugs, and weapons charges filed in the United States. The administration justified the action as a law-enforcement and national-security mission, with Trump even stating the U.S. could temporarily “run” Venezuela until a transition was ensured, though the legality and geopolitical implications were widely questioned internationally. The episode reinforced a broader message that Washington was prepared to directly intervene when it believed its security or strategic interests were threatened.
Trump’s intentions toward Greenland have been framed primarily around national security and strategic dominance in the Arctic. He has openly said the United States would pursue control of Greenland “whether they like it or not”, arguing that only the U.S. has the capability to protect the island from Russia or China and linking Arctic control to global security and military infrastructure such as missile defence systems. He has also refused to rule out force and used economic pressure, including tariff threats, to push Denmark and European allies toward negotiations, sparking a major diplomatic confrontation with the EU and NATO partners and fears of a broader geopolitical crisis. Trump’s approach toward allies has been perhaps the most controversial component of his global strategy. Historically, U.S. alliances were framed as permanent strategic commitments based on shared values and collective security. Trump has challenged this model by treating alliances – particularly NATO – as transactional arrangements. Through these actions, Trump has sent a stark message to both NATO and the United Nations: U.S. participation in alliances and global systems is conditional on direct national benefit. His pressure on NATO allies over defence spending and Arctic security, combined with unilateral moves like Venezuela and aggressive territorial positioning in Greenland, signals a shift toward transactional, power-centric diplomacy rather than traditional alliance-based consensus. At the same time, U.S. officials insist Washington remains committed to NATO but expects structural changes that reduce the American burden and increase allied responsibility, even as European leaders warn about long-term instability and declining trust.
Trump’s policies toward adversaries have followed a similar logic of unpredictability combined with economic leverage. Rather than relying primarily on multilateral sanctions or coalition diplomacy, his approach has emphasised bilateral pressure, economic isolation, and targeted geopolitical signalling. This has reinforced the broader message that economic power – especially control over trade access, financial systems, and technology flows – is now the primary battlefield of international competition. The strategic implication is that future global conflicts may increasingly occur through economic instruments rather than conventional military confrontation. Trump’s increasingly direct confrontation with Iran has been marked by sharp warnings, military signalling and vocal encouragement of anti-government protests, reflecting a hardline “nation first” posture.
The shift toward bilateral diplomacy-negotiating directly with individual nations rather than through global frameworks-reflects a belief that direct negotiation produces clearer, more enforceable outcomes. A peek into his tariff dealing with Pakistan, Bangladesh and India clears any doubt of applying the same ideology. He has checkmated India and China with his hidden masterstrokes. Trump’s political style – highly centralised messaging, rapid executive action, and constant narrative dominance – has itself become a model studied by leaders across the world. The concept that political authority must be projected continuously through decisive action rather than consensus-building has gained traction in several political systems. Whether this shift proves sustainable remains debated, but its influence is undeniable.
One of the most significant global consequences of Trump’s policies has been the normalisation of overt nationalism in international diplomacy. Increasingly, countries are openly prioritising domestic industrial policy, border control, and cultural identity preservation in ways that would have been politically controversial two decades ago. America has always shared its technological milestones, be it Facebook, Instagram, X or YouTube, but for its own one-sided dominance. Trump’s doctrine has effectively reframed globalisation as optional rather than inevitable. The message that national survival and prosperity must be negotiated aggressively rather than assumed through global cooperation has resonated in both developed and developing nations. Domestically, Trump’s rapid use of executive authority has also redefined expectations of presidential power. The scale and speed of executive orders, regulatory reversals, and bureaucratic restructuring demonstrate how modern administrative systems can be reshaped quickly under centralised political direction.
Ultimately, Trump’s transformation of the global order can be understood as part of a broader historical cycle. Periods of intense globalisation are often followed by phases of national consolidation. Trump’s second-term doctrine reflects the belief that the United States must lead this consolidation rather than react to it. His emphasis on economic nationalism, military leverage, institutional scepticism, and transactional diplomacy has fundamentally altered how power is negotiated internationally. What is clear is that Trump has permanently altered global expectations of American leadership style. In many parts of the world, Trump is viewed – especially by nationalist political movements – as a model for assertive sovereignty-driven governance. The belief that national strength must be pursued relentlessly, even at the cost of diplomatic friction, is increasingly becoming part of mainstream geopolitical strategy. He has demonstrated how state power, when aggressively directed, can reshape global negotiations in favour of domestic priorities. Critics warn that such an approach risks escalating global fragmentation and reducing cooperation on shared global challenges. What is undeniable is that Trump’s second-term strategy has forced the world to confront a new geopolitical reality: alliances are conditional, trade is strategic, diplomacy is transactional, and national interest is openly prioritised over global consensus. Nations don’t have a choice except to follow his diktats. In doing so, he has not only reshaped U.S. foreign policy but has also influenced the strategic thinking of governments across continents. Whether one views him as a disruptor or a reformer, Trump’s ambition and policy execution have undeniably left a profound imprint on the evolving structure of global power in the 21st century.
(The writer is Co-convenor, Health Cell, J&K BJP)
The post Trump Reshaping the Global Order appeared first on Daily Excelsior.