US Foreign Policy under President Trump’s Second Term in Eight Key Words

On Wednesday, October 1, Emmanuel Mayer, the Deputy Director for North America at the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, delivered a lecture organized by Lucas Sageot-Chomel, the academic advisor for second-year students of the North America minor. By combining pedagogical explanations supported by topical examples and interactions with the student audience, Mr. Mayer offered an analysis of American foreign policy under President Donald Trump’s second mandate. In eight keywords he aimed at sharing his “practitioner’s view” as a diplomat rather than a spokesperson for the Ministry.

Mr. Mayer began his lecture by sharing that President Trump “has almost become an obsession,” and his insights, highlighting Trump’s influence on US foreign policy, would justify this claim. When students were asked what key words they would use to define his policies, answers varied from “clientelist,” “infantilizing,” “masculinist,” to ”clan-like.” Some even guessed notions mentioned by Mr. Mayer, who opened his list with “America First.”

To him, US foreign policy is guided and influenced by particular national interests prioritized by Trump such as the fight against illegal immigration, with the risk of threatening long-standing alliances. For instance, on September 6, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials arrested 475 workers in a Hyundai battery plant in Georgia. More than 300 of them were South Korean citizens taken to the US by the South Korea-owned company for them to work illegally setting up the factory. While such a measure takes the risk of deterring foreign companies from investing in American industries, it also humiliates South Korea, an ally funding projects massively in the US. For Trump, protecting American jobs also entails limiting the entry of foreign STEM workers into the American labor market. On September 19, he announced the rise of H-1B visa request fees to $100,000 to be paid by employers. This is a decision that will have a disproportionate impact on Indian workers, who made up more than 70% of H-1B visa recipients in 2024.

Driven by an injunction to “America First,” Trump’s measures seem extremely pragmatic and blind to long-standing alliances. However, Mr. Mayer shed light on Trump’s oscillation between pragmatism and ideology. To give an example, he addressed the President’s executive order that threatened to increase tariffs on Brazilian products by 40% if former President Jair Bolsonaro were to be convicted at his trial. How does one explain such a gesture if not by its ideological affinity? Similarly, in the face of Argentina’s financial crisis, Trump has brought support for President Javier Milei, his “favorite president.” However, strategic interests might have still influenced him, as the US is competing with China for influence in Latin America.

Whether it is ideology or pragmatism that is guiding Trump, what is rather certain about his actions is their unilateralism: Mr. Mayer’s third key word. Trump’s rhetoric indeed advocates for the US to break free from the liberal international order, which is perceived as a straitjacket unfavorable to American interests. His direct attack on international cooperation at the 80^th United Nations General Assembly had already been put to practice through unilateral measures that violated international agreements. On April 24, 2025, he passed an executive order, laying the ground for the exploitation of mineral resources in seabeds. However, this violates Article 136 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the US is a signatory, and which states that “the Area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind.” Another violation of the Law of the Sea occurred in September, when Trump ordered to strike Venezuelan ships that were accused of channeling drugs to the US while navigating the high seas.

In addition to being unilateral, Trump’s decisions are also characterized by their unpredictability. “Trump is capable of contradicting himself and it’s one of his strengths,” Mr. Mayer asserted. He explained that Trump follows his instinct and is not afraid of changing his mind. He is conscious of the asset his unpredictability gives him since it increases the risk and cost of other countries’ decision-making. Drawing on Nixon’s Madman Strategy, he told a reporter that China would not invade Taiwan out of fear of an American military reaction, for Xi Jinping “respects me and he knows I’m fucking crazy.”

Trump’s unpredictability thus makes it hard for him to be categorized in one of the three ideological leanings found among MAGA supporters regarding intervention abroad. While “restrainers” like Vice President J.D. Vance advocate for an isolationist withdrawal of the US from expenditures and endless wars abroad, “primacists” are committed to maintaining US intervention worldwide. In the middle of this spectrum, “prioritizers” want to dedicate American resources to the competition against China. As shared by Mr. Mayer, this blind spot regarding Trump’s position pushed J. D. Vance to delineate the “Trump doctrine.” The President’s foreign policy would be thus defined by a priority given to national interest, as well as aggressive diplomacy that turns to the use of military force in case of failure. Such military action should be crushing enough to avoid deploying boots on the ground in an endless conflict and shouldn’t be guided by an intent of regime change. However, Mr. Mayer stressed that attempts to define a doctrine are at odds with Trump’s unpredictability and may need to evolve according to his attitude in different situations.

Since Donald Trump took office, his unpredictability has mainly been illustrated by sudden tariff threats imposed on other countries. Protectionism is another key feature of his foreign policy, but that is not so unpredictable since he has been obsessed with tariffs since the 1980s. As a businessman, he advocated for tariffs on Japanese products when he grew resentful towards Japan’s economic boom and closed market, all while the US helped fund the country’s military. Mr. Mayer emphasized the multiple roles that tariffs, these “extraordinary tools,” play in Trump’s foreign policy. In fact, they allow a balance in trade exchanges, provide revenue for the Treasury, and incentivize foreign firms to invest in US reindustrialization, all while participating in Trump’s “alone against the world” rhetoric and staging him as a “resolute decision-maker.” For example, on January 26, 2025, Colombian President Gustavo Petro banned US military planes from repatriating Colombian migrants from landing. As a result, Trump asked tariffs on Colombian exports to be doubled to 50%, which led Petro to retaliate with a 25% increase on US exports. Yet, he eventually gave in and the White House issued a statement informing that tariffs would not be raised as Petro accepted to receive the Colombian deportees; this was framed as a matter of respect for the US. Furthermore, by being easy to pass and being visible mediatically, executive orders carry a strong symbolic value as a negotiation tool that subjugates countries and incentivizes them to make concessions.

As highlighted by Mr. Mayer, putting pressure on other countries in negotiations is central to Trump’s transactional diplomacy. Such ethos is shaped by his background as a businessman and shared by his advisors, such as the Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and the Special Envoy for the Middle East and Peace Missions Steve Witkoff. They share a transactional culture of making deals and prioritizing bargaining the hard way, but at the risk of threatening diplomatic alliances. Mr. Mayer shed light on the fact that transactional diplomacy employs similar, or even harsher means against allies than against enemies, drawing on pressures faced by Canada or Denmark.

In such an aggressive diplomatic context, Donald Trump still revindicates his peace-building achievements that he considers himself deserving of the Peace Nobel Prize. Such a tension was coined by Mr. Mayer as “the peacemaker’s paradox.” He explained that “Trump often frames his international action as guided by the will to make peace,” while also militarizing his foreign policy, for instance, in the war on drugs.

To Mr. Mayer, Trump’s foreign policy leads to the decline of American soft power. The traditional influence strategy has been replaced by the dismantlement of USAID, which weakens American prestige on the international scene. This is accompanied by visa restrictions, which undermine the country’s academic and professional appeal. As Canada has been targeted by Trump’s imperialist claims, civil society felt betrayed and thus rallied under Prime Minister Carney’s “Buy Canadian” policy to boycott American goods. Mr. Mayer also emphasized a surge in Mexicans’ unfavorable view of the US, jumping from 33% to 69% in one year.
As far as the impact of Trump’s second term on the work of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs is concerned, Mr. Mayer explained that it was crucial to keep in mind that what was said did not necessarily correspond to what was done. He also highlighted the need to understand who advised Trump behind the scenes, alluding to Laura Loomer, a young right-wing influencer who caused the dismissal of members of the US National Security Council. With Trump constantly expressing his stance on Truth Social, it appeals as if something major and controversial occurs every day. In such an alarmist media context that only worsens the fear of missing out, Mr. Mayer advised students not to become addicted to such news and mindfully take a step back.