Donald Trump’s return to the presidency is accompanied by a series of planned measures aimed at redefining American foreign policy towards various players on the international stage—U.S. allies, rivals, adversaries, international organizations, global corporations, and non-state actors. Like his first term, Trump enters the Oval Office with sharp criticism of the outgoing Democratic president’s foreign policy, rhetoric emphasizing pragmatism, toughness (“leading from a position of strength”), and American supremacy in shaping future foreign policy. In this article, I will examine the anticipated changes in American foreign policy alongside areas of apparent continuity and discuss the initial implications for Israel.

On the spectrum between continuity and change, several prominent “collision paths” emerge when comparing the basic principles of President Joe Biden’s foreign policy with the expected actions of the incoming Trump administration. First, President Biden dedicated his term to providing uncompromising economic, military, and diplomatic support to Ukraine, which continues to demonstrate remarkable resilience against the Russian invasion of its territory. This commitment has persisted despite intense domestic criticism in the U.S. over the allocation of nearly $200 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine. As part of this approach, the Biden administration significantly strengthened NATO, which expanded to 32 member states (following Finland and Sweden’s accession in 2023–2024), solidifying its key factor in ensuring security stability in Europe.

In parallel, the Biden administration took actions to underscore America’s commitment to defending Taiwan against potential Chinese military aggression, which could have upended the strategic balance in Southeast Asia and bolstered China’s status as a superpower equal to the U.S. In this context, President Biden even publicly declared his commitment to assist Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. This statement sparked controversy even within U.S. circles due to the severe implications of a direct military conflict between the U.S. and China.

On climate issues, the Biden administration deepened American commitments to combating the crisis, including reducing U.S. emissions targets, and worked within multilateral frameworks to maximize achievements in this domain. In the realm of values, the Biden administration emphasized rhetoric promoting democratization and values, even convening two summits of the “Democracy Club” under American sponsorship, with the participation of around 110 countries.

"senior figures in the incoming administration have already expressed support for continued active military assistance to Israel (e.g., intercepting direct Iranian threats)"

Shifting Responsibility for Europe to the Europeans

Although the incoming Trump administration has yet to implement its principles on these issues, senior officials—such as Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense-designate Pete Hegseth, and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz—have already expressed positions that starkly contrast with Biden’s policies. Specifically, these figures have questioned the necessity of continued military and economic aid to Ukraine, advocating instead for a diplomatic solution to the conflict, even if it would likely require Ukraine to accept Russian control over territories in the country’s east. The presidential order signed by Trump on January 20, 2025, suspending all new U.S. foreign aid, reinforces the notion that his administration intends to end massive economic support for Ukraine’s war effort, much to the dismay of most European countries and NATO.

This anticipated move will compel NATO members to invest far more resources in supporting Ukraine than they have thus far and shift the burden of responsibility for the struggle on Europe’s eastern border to NATO’s “European wing.” This is consistent with Trump’s declaration of his intention to pressure European NATO members to increase their defense spending to 5% of GDP, compared to the current average of approximately 2.1%. Such statements have already placed the incoming Trump administration on a collision course with countries like Germany and France, which view this target as unrealistic.

Additionally, Trump administration officials’ declared commitment to Taiwan is significantly lower than that of Biden, and they have so far refused to state whether they would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. It is not unlikely that Chinese President Xi Jinping could interpret these signals as an opportunity to strengthen his hold on the island and strive to complete his plan to fully and irreversibly integrate it with mainland China.

On the climate crisis front, a substantial retreat in American commitments is expected, already reflected in Trump’s executive order to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which outlines necessary steps to mitigate the climate crisis’s impacts, and in the announcement of new oil and gas drilling approvals, including in environmentally sensitive areas.

In addition, Trump’s recent surprising declarations about his intention to establish a significant American presence in Greenland, take control of the Panama Canal for exclusive U.S. use, and weaken Canadian sovereignty in the North American region are expected to be interpreted as a further departure from the founding principles of the post-World War II global order. This includes the absence of legitimacy for using force and adherence to territorial integrity in the international system. Such moves will likely embolden actors challenging this global order (such as Xi Jinping) to adopt a more aggressive approach.

Ukrainian President Zelensky: ‘Trump intends to cease massive economic support for Ukraine’s war effort’
photo: Frederic Legrand - COMEO / Shutterstock.com

“A Military and Diplomatic Consensus” in the Middle East

Alongside the anticipated shifts in U.S. foreign policy, there are also areas of consensus between the outgoing and incoming administrations. One prominent area of agreement is the approach toward Israel and the perception of the need to expand regional integration between Israel and its neighbors. Throughout his term, the Biden administration maintained a strong commitment to Israel and regional stability in the Middle East, standing firmly (though not without reservations) alongside Israel during the multi-front conflict that erupted following the October 7 massacre while fending off harsh criticism directed at the U.S. for its stance. Led by outgoing Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the U.S. repeatedly vetoed Security Council resolutions aimed at pressuring Israel to halt its military actions in Gaza. It continued to provide Israel with extensive support regarding the northern front and the fight against Iran and its regional proxies. This support was demonstrated by active U.S. participation in intercepting ballistic missiles launched from Iran and Yemen, mobilizing regional partners to form a coalition presenting a unified front against the Iranian threat, and delivering emergency assistance worth billions of dollars to support Israel’s war efforts.

While the Biden administration applied pressure on Israel—such as withholding the supply of specific military components—to ensure alignment with American interests, it displayed a deep commitment to Israel’s security overall.

The Trump administration’s foundational positions toward Israel must align with these core principles. Specifically, senior figures in the incoming administration have already expressed support for continued active military assistance to Israel (e.g., intercepting direct Iranian threats) and their intention to provide diplomatic protection for Israel—both against pressure from Western states and at the United Nations, where the incoming U.S. Ambassador Alice Stefanik is expected to adopt an explicitly pro-Israel stance.

Similar to the Biden administration, senior Trump officials have voiced interest in advancing regional normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia as part of a strategic worldview focused on the economic benefits such a partnership could bring to U.S. national interests. This approach aligns to continue expanding the Abraham Accords—a policy direction that enjoys consensus between the outgoing and incoming administrations. Additionally, the continuation of a combined strategy of diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran, alongside a credible military threat, could push Tehran to negotiate with the Trump administration, creating a framework that allows Iran to “climb down” while giving Trump the appearance of a highly influential leader capable of driving strategic moves on a historic scale.

A military parade in Taipei, the capital of Taiwan: ‘Xi Jinping may interpret these signals as an opportunity to deepen his grip on the island’

U.S.-Israel Relations: A Forecast of Warming Ties

While Trump’s overall policy toward Israel is expected to maintain continuity, at least rhetorically, several aspects indicate that the incoming administration may adopt a more favorable approach on issues where its predecessor was perceived as relatively hardline. For instance, regarding punitive measures against Israeli actors, the Trump administration has already signed an executive order rescinding the possibility of imposing sanctions on settlers suspected of involvement in violent attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank. This move was accompanied by pro-Israel statements from the incoming U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, who expressed support for deepening Israel’s legitimate presence in the West Bank and rejecting the feasibility of the two-state solution.

Additionally, the Trump administration has announced plans to impose personal sanctions on senior officials at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, which recently issued arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on suspicion of war crimes during the “Iron Swords” conflict. Although largely symbolic, this move carries significant weight in the international arena, signaling the administration’s future direction and potentially rallying other countries that oppose the ICC’s decisions regarding Israel. Furthermore, this step provides the Trump administration with another opportunity to undermine the legitimacy of international institutions that it perceives as interfering in the domestic affairs of the U.S. and its allies.

Finally, initial reports suggest that the Trump administration may lift some restrictions imposed by Biden on the sale of heavy munitions to Israel (notably heavy bombs for fighter jets), though this move could be conditional on Israel’s alignment with Trump’s policies toward the Palestinian and regional arenas.

From Israel’s perspective, to increase the likelihood of continued declarative and practical U.S. support on strategically significant issues (such as Iran, regional agreements, and the macroeconomic sphere), Jerusalem must carefully manage its actions to avoid publicly challenging Washington, despite the potential domestic political costs this may entail.

‘The incoming administration is expected to adopt a “smiling face” policy on issues where its predecessor was perceived as relatively hawkish’
photo: Chip Somodevilla / Shutterstock.com