Since Donald Trump’s return to the presidency on January 20, a series of shifts in American foreign policy have emerged, affecting regional and global players. His administration has also taken extraordinary steps in the economic and multilateral arenas, disrupting the international system.
In his second term, Trump’s significant foreign policy moves have far-reaching implications, particularly in Europe. For the first time since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. government has opened a direct bilateral diplomatic channel with Moscow, working toward ending the war. This conflict, which has lasted three years, has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, led to the destruction of settlements in eastern Ukraine, and had severe global economic consequences.
This approach marks a complete departure from the Biden administration’s policy, which coordinated closely with the European Union and Ukraine to help President Volodymyr Zelensky’s forces maintain Kyiv’s sovereignty in a determined and inspiring struggle against a nuclear superpower with vast resources. These new measures have caused immense frustration in Ukraine, evident during Zelensky’s tense visit to the White House in early March and his high-profile confrontation with President Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance.
Furthermore, during the Munich Security Conference and the NATO leadership summit in Brussels in February, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made it clear to European NATO allies that the U.S. expects Europe to bear the entire burden of regional security. This includes covering the majority of military and civilian aid to Ukraine in the “post-war” period. These messages were accompanied by a sharp critique from Vice President Vance regarding the resilience of democracy in Europe, leaving many European leaders stunned by what they saw as an unprecedented interference by Washington in the continent’s political processes.
From a European perspective, these developments have triggered a significant shift among EU leaders and institutions. At the heart of this response is a newly announced European rearmament program, estimated at approximately €800 billion, alongside intensified diplomatic efforts to outline a political-military framework for Ukraine following a potential ceasefire agreement with Russia.
The realization that Europe must break its dependency on U.S. defense guarantees has been reinforced by Trump’s declared ambition to assert control over Greenland—an autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO member—warning that such measures could be pursued by force if necessary. This realization has also been sharpened by the closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), symbolizing America’s gradual retreat from its leadership role in global humanitarian and development diplomacy.
These developments are seen as a continuation of America’s retreat from its post-World War II transatlantic commitments. On an operational level, this policy shift erodes confidence in NATO’s mutual defense clause (Article 5 of the alliance’s 1949 founding treaty), given that the U.S. security umbrella is at the heart of this principle. This is particularly significant considering the presence of over 100,000 U.S. troops stationed across Europe, the maintenance of dozens of military bases, the deployment of nuclear weapons in several key European countries, and America’s unrivaled operational and intelligence dominance in the region.
Protecting Interests in the Middle East
The first weeks of President Trump’s tenure in the Oval Office have been marked by involvement in three key arenas in the Middle East.
First, the Trump administration has invested significant resources in seeking to end the war between Israel and Hamas and resolve the issue of hostages while expressing interest in shifting the future administration of Gaza to U.S. regional partners. Despite initial statements suggesting that Trump intended to evacuate Gaza’s residents and transfer the territory to U.S. ownership (dubbed the “Gaza Riviera” plan), no operational steps have been taken thus far to advance this initiative. Several statements have been made that temper the initial discourse on the matter. Nevertheless, President Trump’s special envoy to the region, Steve Witkoff, has been engaged in weeks of intensive diplomatic efforts to push both sides toward implementing the framework agreement outlined at the end of the Biden administration.
Second, the Trump administration has revived the “maximum pressure” policy in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, including the announcement of new economic measures and attempts to create momentum for bilateral negotiations while maintaining a credible threat of military force. This rhetoric has included “exchanges of blows” on social media between Trump administration officials and senior Iranian figures, as well as pressure on pro-American regional actors to support Washington’s approach. Trump’s direct diplomatic channel with Moscow may also provide leverage.
Third, the administration has taken decisive operational actions against regional terrorist organizations, including a series of successful airstrikes targeting senior ISIS leaders in Iraq and Syria and launching a powerful new military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen. While the full implications of these efforts remain unclear, they signal the United States’ determination to play an active role in the region, especially when core American economic interests—such as the freedom of navigation in global trade routes—are at stake.
The Challenge: Positioning the U.S. in the Economic Arena
A primary focus of Trump’s administration has been attempting to correct what the president perceives as an unfair trade balance between the U.S. and various global and regional actors. In recent weeks, the U.S. has imposed tariffs on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico—three of its main trading partners—and threatened additional tariffs on raw materials (such as steel and aluminum) from the European Union. These moves directly contradict the multilateral trade rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
These actions have sparked frustration and anger, particularly in Canada, which has historically viewed itself as a strategic ally of the U.S. across multiple domains, including within NATO. For now, these countries have responded with retaliatory tariffs, leading to significant declines in global financial markets. However, the Trump administration sees tariffs as an effective tool to impose its will on other nations (for example, pressuring Europeans to allocate a larger share of their budgets to national defense) and remains convinced that, in the long run, these measures will benefit the American economy.
Between Strategic Opportunities and Diplomatic Risks
The first two months of Trump’s second term have been marked by pro-Israel rhetoric and policy steps. One of the most notable expressions of this stance was the invitation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the first foreign leader to visit the White House after the new administration took office. This positive momentum has continued through measures such as granting export permits for critical military equipment to support a potential escalation in Gaza, amounting to approximately $8 billion; appointing pro-Israel figures to key positions in the administration; and signaling to Iran that the U.S. would stand by Israel in the event of a direct military confrontation. Additionally, the administration is eager to promote further normalization between Israel and its neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia, and has even imposed sanctions on senior officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Despite these explicit expressions of support, the above developments present several potential risks for Israel. First, closer U.S.-Russia ties raise concerns about the possible leakage of sensitive Israeli intelligence. They could place Israel in a difficult position regarding Iran, given Tehran’s status as a key Russian ally in recent years. Additionally, U.S. pressure to reach a ceasefire agreement in Gaza may intensify in the coming weeks, given the apparent deadlock in indirect negotiations between the parties. In such a scenario, Israel could find itself cornered and forced to accept a framework that does not necessarily align with its policy objectives.
To mitigate these risks, Israel must deepen its strategic dialogue with the U.S. across all levels—particularly in political-diplomatic and military-operational discussions—and work to align Washington’s positions with Israeli interests. This will require an internal Israeli discourse, including conversations about post-war scenarios, an issue that has thus far mainly been avoided. At the same time, Israel should refrain from publicly challenging Washington on other issues and strive to strengthen its position as a steadfast and irreplaceable ally.
