On January 20, Donald J. Trump, the former 45th President of the United States, was yet again, sworn in as the 47th US President. Speculations, expectations, anxieties and concerns abound among America’s allies, partners and adversaries about the immediate and long-term ramifications of the coming four years of Trump’s second presidential term. Some countries are already feeling the impact of the Trump turbulence and many others are bracing to pre-empt or face the consequences. A range of issue areas are already undergoing significant changes from the executive orders and policies that the Trump administration has put in place, in the first few days of his second presidency. Hence, global responses to Trump 2.0 and its implications for many issue areas formed a part of a very invigorating discussion among the research interns of the Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies (KIIPS). This compendium is a collection of their views and thoughts. It reflects the perception of young Indian scholars and their opinions on international affairs, especially the evolving US role that affects countries around the world. These views expressed in the short commentaries are entirely of the concerned scholars and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the KIIPS as an institution.
EU, NATO & Trump 2.0
*Adrien Benito
The Trump 2.0 administration will mark a profound change from Trump’s first presidency. President Trump is now in total control of the Republican Party without any opposition. This shift will mark an accentuation of transactional politics as claimed during the campaign and the use of economic statecraft to achieve US foreign policy objectives. The strategy of economic coercion and unpredictable behavior is used to negotiate with the Europeans, who, in the eyes of the Trump administration, are no longer allies but are competitors and clients.
Trump is pursuing two policies here, the most important being America First, which is why he wants to reduce the EU's trade surplus with the US by selling more US energy and military equipment to the EU. The second objective is to withdraw America’s focus from Europe and Ukraine. US policy is focused on China, followed by other adversaries such as Iran and Russia.
The strategy of American pressure on the EU, used as a pre-negotiation, acts on European countries that are already economically, politically and militarily weak due to structural problems. National governments have not reacted firmly to Elon Musk's interference in domestic politics, exposing EU members' dependencies on big US tech companies. Nor have they reacted strongly to Trump's threat to annex Greenland, because of the security dependencies the US places on the EU (particularly in Eastern Europe and in the context of the war in Ukraine). Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank (ECB), and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, declare that the EU should buy more LNG (liquefied natural gas) and military equipment from the USA. This submissive attitude on the part of the EU is likely to be costly for the independent decision-making of European countries caught between Washington and Beijing.
This position is not the only one possible, as the EU can put forward a number of arguments to convince the US not to take coercive action against them. Firstly, the EU can argue that if the US does so, the EU will also respond with tariffs, which is not good for the US economy. Secondly, the EU will turn to other partners such as China and, because of the increased tariffs it is likely to face, will be ready to negotiate with the EU. This trajectory may therefore be simplified by the rise to power of reactionary populist governments (promoted by Musk) that are close to China. All in all, this will be counter-productive for the US. Another argument may be that the EU does not have the physical production resources to achieve its military defense goals without the US at the moment. Increasing Europe's defense budget means continuing to buy from the US while promoting European production.
The arrival of a tough Trump administration may also lead to an awakening in Europe. In response to American disinterest and pressure on Europe, EU countries can move closer together and seek to develop autonomy in strategic sectors of the economy (new technologies, industries, energy, tariffs), coordinate diplomatic issues (sanctions, international organizations and dialogue with the Global South) and promote a single position on security policy (intra- and extra-European). To avoid the establishment of bilateral relations between European countries and the United States, EU countries should set goals for themselves, following the recommendations of the Letta and Draghi reports and focusing on three main issues: the transition to green energy, technological development and the development of the defense and security industry. Renewing European competitiveness and productivity will stabilize the EU's economic and political situation, which is crucial to its geopolitical credibility and ability to negotiate with the USA and other powers.
Trump's rejection and retreat from international order, institutions, the rule of law and multilateralism mark a profound shift in foreign policy from the Biden administration. Achieving strategic autonomy for the EU should also be characterized by assuming its values, convictions and positioning at international level. Distancing from Trump's vision of international relations and focusing on what Europeans really want, what their interests are, is a crucial step. This initiative, which involves firmly resisting American pressure, could cool relations between the EU and the USA, but rebalancing the balance of power between the two parties (particularly in the first few months) is essential to re-establishing a healthy dialogue between partners and allies. This role, which Ursula Von Der Leyen has not assumed, could be taken on by Donald Tusk (Prime Minister of Poland), as his country assumes the EU Council Presidency for six months.
However, this urgent need for EU unification is not shared by all member states, and time does not seem to be on its side: on the contrary, the trend is towards euroscepticism. Two movements, not opposites, are major within the EU, the first group is characterized by Atlanticism and adaptation to the Trump presidency. It includes Eastern European countries, which are highly exposed to Russia, as well as Germany, for example. They depend heavily on American defense agreements for their security, and are prepared to accept American diktat in return. The second group, with parties on the rise in many European countries, are the populists, those who share Trump's ideas and values. These far-right groups have nationalist ideas and are strongly Eurosceptic. Europe has become divided between these two groups, and other more pro-European countries (such as France) are unable to agree on the direction to take. Trump's election, given the current trend, risks exacerbating these fractures and divisions within the EU and failing to put on the table the major implications of the Trump presidency for the EU.
With the outbreak of war in Ukraine, NATO has regained a central role for Europeans and their security. However, Donald Trump's return to power is calling into question the very existence and credibility of the organization, as well as European-US defence relations. The Trump administration's foreign policy attaches little importance to Europe and the war in Ukraine, which it sees solely as a cost to the United States for which it derives no benefit. Trump's policy focuses on the United States on the one hand, and on China on the other, which is seen as the main enemy even before Iran or Russia.
During his campaign, Trump particularly insisted that he would not defend countries that did not respect the minimum 2% of GDP allocated to the defence of NATO signatories, declaring that he would encourage Russia to do “what they want”. It wasn't until the outbreak of war in Ukraine that European countries increased their defence spending to reach the 2% mark for a large part of them, and to come very close to it for the rest. Trump reiterated his pressure to increase the % of GDP, and is now urging countries to increase to 5%, a rate which is completely unrealistic for almost all signatory countries given their economic situation. Despite its repeated threats to leave NATO, the United States cannot withdraw from the alliance, as this would require Congressional approval (highly unlikely) under a law sponsored by Marco Rubio (currently US Secretary of State) which prevents a President from deciding on his own to leave the alliance. However, the credibility of the alliance is still at stake, and if Trump decides to question American commitments, deterrence will lose its effect. Moreover, he can always reduce the number of troops and cooperation between allies to keep the organization running at a minimum, and save on expenditure for use in other theatres such as the Indo-Pacific or West Asia.
In the event of a gradual withdrawal of American focus from NATO, the other member countries would find themselves very vulnerable in the short term to the threat of Russian hybrid warfare. In response, and to meet these challenges, Europeans will have to shift NATO's centre of gravity towards Europe, by taking greater control. To achieve this, the first step will be to continue to increase defence budgets, investing first and foremost in European armaments, but also in American equipment, given Europe's current lack of hardware production capacity. NATO also needs to anticipate the areas in which a US withdrawal could have the greatest impact, in order to compensate for them (including air defence, intelligence and cyber defence).
This process of empowering Europe for its own defence, and recalibrating NATO towards Europe to defend its own region, is essential, regardless of the implementation of Trump's threats. However, this does not mean abandoning the partnership with the US, as the interconnection between wars and countries at war calls for global containment strategies, encompassing all theatres of operation. The challenge is to insist that Europeans and NATO can enable the United States to pursue its interests. Through his threats, Trump is also seeking to strengthen the sale of US weapons (and energy) to Europeans. Fostering strategic autonomy in the defence sector for Europeans and maintaining cooperation with the United States may not in fact be opposing objectives. What is needed, however, is a strong, united response on the part of NATO countries outside the United States, in order to establish ambitious common objectives in view of the risks of division posed both by its enemies and now by its members.
BRICS & Trump 2.0
*Bishwarupa Kar
As the tariff threats by President Donald Trump spread across the world with every passing day, multilateral platforms too have not been spared. Amongst his other bold moves after taking office, Trump’s tariff threats towards the BRICS nations, have placed these group of rising economies of the world at the receiving end of bold American policies. However, the genesis of the dispute dates back to the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022 when USA imposed crippling sanctions on the Russian economy. Serving as a wake-up call to the unilateral geopolitical influence of the United States, the BRICS Summit in 2023 initiated a discussion to reduce their economic dependence on USA by circumventing the US dollar.
However, this move did not go down well with President Trump who declared in December 2024, that if the BRICS creates a new currency or backs any other currency as an alternative to the US dollar, he would impose a 100% tariff. Although countries such as India were quick to defend their stance of not promoting de-dollarization, other members of the grouping might not have similar inclinations. Therefore, the BRICS-Trump 2.0 dynamics might witness either of the two outcomes. Either the grouping could decide to back down on its de-dollarization efforts to avoid tariffs from USA, enduring their vulnerability to the US dollar, or they could stand up to the USA’s carrot-stick politics and implement their strategic autonomy, the latter being the more likely possibility.
As a result, the world could witness a tariff war between the rising economies and the USA, disrupting trade exchanges. Once down the rabbit hole, BRICS nations can be expected to implement their foreign policy flexibility and continue to promote trade in their currencies. China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), a system already spread across 119 countries and regions that allows for settling payments in renminbi, could take off even further, propelling China’s great power ambitions vis-à-vis the US. Similarly, Russia can be expected to increase its economic influence across Asia and Africa by carrying forward its System for Transmitting Financial Messages (SPFS), an alternative to USA’s SWIFT i.e. an international interbank system for making payments and transmitting information between organizations in countries. Meanwhile, India and the other newer BRICS members will likely seek alternatives for the US dollar such as the Indian UPI system.
As a group of major powers, the BRICS nations must not bend to USA’s will and instead prioritize their national interest to spread their sphere of geopolitical influence. As they are well aware that controlling the world’s purse strings is the first step towards that goal, they must continue to exert their free will by diversifying their forex reserves beyond the US dollar and US treasury bonds. Further, they can sign Free Trade Agreements with countries to do bilateral trade in local currency instead of the dollar, since USA cannot intervene in FTAs between other countries. However, it would be more of a realpolitik of maintaining the rhetoric of not officially endorsing global de-dollarization.
For India, although it had a trade surplus of US$36.8 billion with USA in FY24, access to US markets without high tariffs is very much in its interests since USA is its second-largest trading partner after China. Moreover, a Chinese takeover of world banking systems through the CIPS is not in India’s favour despite their convergence at the BRICS. Therefore, as India’s External Affairs Minister, S. Jaishankar responded to Trump’s tariff threats saying, “We have always said that India has never been for de-dollarization; right now there is no proposal to have a BRICS currency,” India should continue to navigate its rhetoric amongst its economic priorities.
In a multipolar world, rising powers are as much capable as interested in spreading their own influence without being at the mercy of the hegemon. As a platform that brings together these contending powers, BRICS, along with Russia, represents developing countries of the Global South and thereby gains from having its own stance. Therefore, the exercise of its strategic autonomy in financial and trade matters goes far in symbolizing not only its own growing geopolitical influence but also the strength of multilateralism.
Australia, Japan & Trump 2.0
*Archana Paswan
Since Donald Trump coming into power and officially taking charge as the United States President for the second term, the geo-politics around the world seems to have got shaken. From imposing heavy tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada to trying to reclaim the Panama Canal to his approach against Canada and Greenland, there is a geo-political churning. Trump’s unpredictable and tumultuous nature impacts two of its close partners, Australia and Japan in the Indo-Pacific region. Both Australia and Japan along with United States and India are members of Quadrilateral grouping that aims to maintain “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” and promote security and stability.
However, both Australia and Japan are mutually concerned over Trump’s “America First” worldview, forced high tariffs, and rising geopolitical tensions between major powers (US-China) in the region. How the alliance between Australia, Japan and United States play a distinguished role by addressing China’s growing footholds under Trump 2.0 is something to watch out for.
Australia and America have maintained a robust and harmonious relationship based on mutual security and geopolitical interests. Australia shares a benevolent bond with America not only as a bilateral partner but also as a vital partner in Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) and trilateral Security partner between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States (AUKUS). The relationship between the two seems gloomy with the Donald Trump taking charge as the US President for the second term and Australia too going for federal elections this year. Though, the response to Trump 2.0 was remarkably placid, Trump’s unpredictability poses a prominent challenge. Approach of both the nations towards China and the global order seems interesting. Trump on taking his official charge has announced to withdraw from the World Health organization and also back out from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Trump downgrades the liberal international order. This clearly opposes Australia’s commitment towards multilateralism and its inclination towards rules-based liberal international order. Trump’s preference for “sovereignty and economic competitiveness” while Australia’s call for “pay a fair share of tax wherever they operate and generate profits” might become troublesome for the partnership. Hence, Australia needs to pragmatically deal with America and protect its geostrategic and geopolitical interests.
Japan too is one of America’s most secured partners in Asia (in general) and the Indo-Pacific (in particular). The US-Japan cooperation has become global in scope. The US-Japan partnership under President Trump’s first term was full of opportunities and challenges. Japan’s former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had close personal relationship with President Trump during his first term. Under the Trump’s second administrative period, both US-Japan look forward to strengthen their cooperation in various fields ranging from trade, defense, technology, and security. Given the highly intensified atmosphere of global technological market competition, US-Japan partnership in the arena of technology and Security Infrastructure might thrive under Trump 2.0. As Trump emphasizes on “America First” view, apprehensiveness pertain over high tariffs on Japanese export to US. Trump 2.0 highlights eagerness in US foreign policy approach to bolster defense and security partnership with Japan in order to counter and isolate China both economically and militarily in the region. Japan is likely to be asked and pushed further to increase its defense spending. The United States under the leadership of Trump 2.0 is likely going to push for increased stationing of US troops in Japan. Washington in the coming times may further ask Japan to limit its economic partnership with China. The most significant concern for Japan is the impact of Trump’s policies on the regional stability and its partnership with China. Japan in the coming times may find itself in a challenging spot to maintain its security ties with the US along with economic ties with China.
Both Australia and Japan look forward to see how the Trump 2.0 unfolds for them. There is optimism for renewed focus on mutual shared strategic interests of the three nations. It is likely that the common strategy of Free and Open Indo-Pacific will gain concentration under Trump 2.0. Australia and Japan must work together to further avoid security complications in the region and balance their economic and geostrategic interests. Hence, both Canberra and Tokyo must commit themselves towards working on beneficial terms with America in the highly complex geopolitical landscape and must adapt to whatever that comes down the pipeline.
Canada, UK & Trump 2.0
*Shreya Das
The ‘internationalist’ USA is currently in a flux. While relatively new strategic partners like India look at elected Trump administration as a sign of stable & sustainable bilateral relations, historical US allies such as Canada and the UK are displaying an unsteadiness in their adjustment to the unpredictability of the White House. Trump’s dubiousness towards alliances and multilateral institutions, and disdain for free trade that he deems as detrimental to the America First Policy, has coerced a reorganization of diplomatic and economic strategies amongst its closest allies as they cope with growing divide between Washington and other Western, democratic states.
The reelection of Donald Trump as the 47th President of the USA and the subsequent resignation of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has reignited the controversy of Trump wanting to merge the sovereign state of Canada as the 51st state of the United States of America. Citing “massive trade deficits and subsidies to keep Canada afloat,” “lack of tariffs and decreasing taxes upon the merger,” and “security from threats of Russian and Chinese ships,” Trump has gone on a social media tirade proposing an economic and not a military, usurpation of Canada within its territory. While such calls for a merger may be dismissed as unfeasible or even bluff, real economic implications lay ahead for Canada, including threats of increasing tariffs by 25% for Canadian exports to the USA by February 2025.
The tariff threat comes after Trump’s unverified claims about the USA & Canada facing a 200-250 billion dollar trade deficit and inadequate border security to curb illegal migration to the USA via Canadian (and Mexican) borders. This, in turn, has fueled anxieties about impending recession when the Canadian economy is already slowing down and costs of living are at an all-time high. The downward economic trend domestically and threats of tariffs from the Trump Presidency will also have implications for the upcoming Canadian prime ministerial elections, which are already predicted to be titled towards the Conservative leadership. While high-profile Canadian ministers have made it clear that retaliatory tariffs will be imminent, economists at Goldman Sachs have predicted that there is a 20% chance that Trump might go ahead with his tariffs plans for Canada – given his previous track record with Mexico (25% tariff hike) and China (60% tariff hike) during his first term, which were never implemented.
Rather, the tariff threats are anticipated to be a bargaining tactic for the upcoming review of USMCA, where the renegotiations will seek to reflect Trump’s preference for national security and immigration using trade as leverage. While Trump envisions tariffs to be his winning card to secure the growth of the US economy, the current mood in Ottawa is to project themselves as a ‘reliable trade partner’ while also leveraging its position as the largest export market for the US market in future negotiations. Canada would also be expected to placate Trump’s discontentment with its minimal defense contribution to NATO (currently at 1.29% of its GDP), by increasing its defense spending. Border security & illegal immigration containment has been deemed as one of the three cornerstones of US-Canada relations post-Trump’s reelection, and following Trump’s tariff threats, the Canadian leadership has swiftly responded by announcing plans for enhanced coordination with US law enforcement and aerial surveillance task force to secure the undefended Northern borders to contain the flow of illegal drugs & migration.
The anxieties over 10% blanket tariffs on US imports & escalating trade wars as been a cause of concern for the UK leadership as well, but the personal relationship between Trump and Labour’s Starmer suggests pragmatism of maintaining cordial and profitable bilateral relationships without plunging into zero-sum games. The Labour party had correctly assessed Trump returning to office despite their championing of Democrats in previous elections, and Starmar as been receptive to Trump’s appreciation of doing a “a very good job” despite their ideological differences. The focus is now on signing trade deals focused on service & technology sectors without getting caught up on tariff wars over trade deficits. There is also hope that due to relatively less proportion of UK exports to the USA, UK might escape relatively unscathed from the planned tariff increase.
However, the UK remains anxious about getting stuck in a diplomatic and economic crossfire between the US & EU – especially at a time when the Starmar administration has publically admitted to Brexit negatively impacting UK economy and hopes to improve trade relations with the EU. The upcoming four years would therefore entail an act of balancing between the US and UK. There is also ambiguity surrounding Trump’s position on UK ceding Chagos Island to Mauritius – which contains a joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. Reformist UK leaders like Farage claim that it would lead to ‘outright hostility’ by the Trump administration, and while several US Republicans including Marco Rubio has been against the deal due to the strategic importance of the archipelago, it still remains to be seen how the Trump leadership will navigate the legal challenge of holding onto Chagos, especially due to Mauritius’s geopolitical closeness to China. There is also an understanding within UK policy circles that while Trump’s ire with trade deficits has led to diplomatic squabbles with those in the West like Canada and EU, its primary theatre of action would be Asia. While the USA will continue remain heavily invested in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, policymakers in London remain doubtful whether the Americans are as invested in Kyiv as the rest of Europe.
Trump’s reelection has been met with a flurry of predictions about how his foreign policy will chart out, and Trump’s diverging attitudes to allies and partners alike has been received by both apprehension and adjustment. The long-standing relationships between US & Canada and US & UK are being tested by the transactional nature of the ‘America First’ approach in Washington. Trade deficits are particularly areas of “correction” for the Trump administration, and its heavy-handedness with states like Canada from the get go reflect a competitive rather than a collaborative mindset – a return to traditional zero sum-games in a protectionist environment. States like the UK will be more focused on increasing their existing goodwill, to assure their “fair share” in both trade & defense expenditure. Pragmatism will be at the forefront of ally politics; with reasonable political willingness to shoulder more military burdens and aim for mutual understanding on tariff burdens.
Immigration & Trump 2.0
*Rohit Kumar Paswan
As Donald Trump took control of the White House on 20th January, following up on the promises of the presidential campaign, he issued 10 executive orders and proclamations to change the appearance of US immigration law. Trump’s crackdown on undocumented migrants, the “mass deportation” of illegal migrants, and officials imposing restrictions on legal immigration are part of the larger plan to “redefine America”. Trump’s administration's stance of “zero tolerance” towards illegal migrants and expansion of “expedited removal” is very well depicted through the executive orders and proclamations issued on the very first day.
The Declaration of National Emergency on the Southern Border will empower the legal authority permitting the Department of Defense to redirect the military funds for border enforcement, including the construction of barriers and expanding the detention capacity. The expansion of expedited removal will expose almost millions of recent arrivals and others to potential deportation without any court hearing. The Expansion of 287(g) articles will increase immigrant targeting and racial profiling by local law enforcement.
The overlapping of restrictions and new obstacles added by Trump's executive action will give uninformed and unaccountable power to border agents to determine what happens to asylum seekers. Mexican President Claudia has started a program called “Mexico Embraces You” providing food, shelter, medical care, and help in obtaining Mexican documents. The program is good but the administration has to address the bigger picture and solve the issue of unemployment and the safety of citizens from drug cartels and mafia.
In the case of India as of 2022 data, there are around 725,000 unauthorized Indians in the US. India is ready to accept Indian nationals, who are either overstaying or staying without proper documentation. Instead of leaving it to the US, India needs to have track of Indians who leave for abroad for a specific period and give due diligence to whoever is overstaying or migrated illegally. Most Indians migrate to the US for two main reasons namely education and reunion with the family. Similarly, as per Pew estimates of 2022, the US has 375,000 unauthorised immigrants from China. Chinese officials have stated that “China’s principle is to verify first and then repatriate” and they will accept only people who are from mainland China.
China’s response of accepting only mainland Chinese will expose the deportees who belong to the provinces of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macao to arbitrary and unlawful detention. Trump’s bold immigration policies have displaced thousands of people, put million others in fear of deportation, and ignored the question of refugees in war-torn areas seeking asylum in the US. While these policies may have been in the national interest of the US and the livelihoods of its nationals, the disruptions caused by the circumstances make one wonder whether the situation could have been handled more diplomatically rather than forceful deportation and tariff threats. One would rather think that it would be in America’s geopolitical interest to handle such issues more delicately.
Human Rights & Trump 2.0
*Aditya Gulati
As the United States, long seen as a bastion of human rights, navigates the early days of President Donald Trump’s second term, a familiar pattern emerges—one that juxtaposes the nation's foundational ideals against a series of policies that challenge these very principles. The return of Trump has sparked renewed scrutiny over America’s dedication to its foundational principles, revealing both familiar tensions and evolving challenges in his approach to governance.
One of the most significant areas of concern is the administration's approach to transgender rights. Within hours of re-inauguration, Trump has signed an executive order titled “Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government”, which simply states that USA will recognise two sexes, i.e. male and female. The administration in previous term argued against extending workplace discrimination protections to include gender identity, however, this time, it raises significant questions about the administration's understanding of 'biological truth' regarding transgender individuals. These measures cast a long shadow, under the guise of upholding “traditional values”.
The US government's decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO), again, under President Trump's administration exemplifies the continuation of its strategy to influence public health policy through political mechanisms. This action raises concerns about the potential impact on global health responses to emergencies such as Ebola or MPOX outbreaks. According to Trump, the withdrawal is legally permissible without delay because the administration claims it already provided the required one-year notice back in 2020, during his first term. This move is indicative of a broader trend where public welfare considerations seem to be secondary to political objectives, mirroring earlier efforts to undermine healthcare reforms like the Affordable Care Act in 2019 which could have resulted in over 20 million Americans losing out on their health insurance. Such policies not only isolate the US from global health efforts but also risk undermining the collaborative frameworks essential for addressing international health crises.
The approach to women's reproductive rights has also taken a decidedly conservative turn, echoing previous policies and intensifying them to significantly restrict access to reproductive health services both domestically and internationally. In previous term, the administration finalized federal rules allowing employers to opt out of providing birth control coverage under moral and religious exemptions. This policy placed employer beliefs over women's health choices. Building on this to deteriorate the situation, in the second term, the administration has reinforced and expanded the Global Gag Rule, which prohibits US federal funding for any international health organizations that counsel, refer, or provide abortions. This move not only cripples NGOs dedicated to women's health but also isolates them financially, forcing many to reduce services or shut down—effectively increasing health risks for women globally. Moreover, the re-adoption of the Geneva Consensus Declaration aligns the US with global anti-abortion sentiments, further cementing its stance against progressive reproductive policies. Such actions, combined with the pardon of anti-abortion activists (ten of them were prosecuted under the Biden administration for blocking an abortion clinic in Washington DC in 2020) signal a profound governmental endorsement of anti-abortion rhetoric and measures, underscoring a comprehensive assault on women's rights and bodily autonomy.
Similarly, a striking shift in policy has emerged, in the domain of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) within the federal government. This reversal is marked by a series of executive orders that dismantled previous efforts, notably those initiated under the Biden administration, aimed at fostering a diverse and inclusive federal workforce. The orders stated them as “wasteful” programs. This not only affects the federal workforce but also the message the United States sends about its values regarding diversity and inclusion to the global community.
As these developments unfold, they represent not just a domestic recalibration of policies but also a significant shift in America's international relations and its historical role as a defender of human rights. This moment in history presents a critical juncture. The choices made today will undoubtedly shape the legacy of the Trump administration and define America’s global standing as a defender—or detractor—of human dignity.
|
Past Orders (First Term) |
Present Orders (Second Term) |
|
|
Transgender Rights |
Argued against extending workplace discrimination protections to include gender identity. |
Signed executive order “Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government”, recognizing only male and female as sexes. |
|
Health Policies |
- Argued the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was unconstitutional, threatening over 20 million Americans' health insurance. |
- Withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO), claimed a one-year notice was already provided in 2020. |
|
Women’s Rights |
- Allowed employers to deny birth control coverage under moral and religious exemptions. |
- Reinforced and expanded the Global Gag Rule, prohibiting U.S. federal funding for organizations that offer abortion services. |
Indo-Pacific Strategy & Trump 2.0
*Sujal Shah
Donald Trump's re-election to a second term as president marks possible profound changes in America's Indo-Pacific strategy, with possible consequences that will reshape regional and alliance dynamics. Although Trump's first term (2017-2021) facilitated the codification of America's Indo-Pacific strategy, Trump's return to the White House in 2025 is occurring in radically changed strategic conditions. In his first term, Trump was instrumental in shifting the American perspective from Asia-Pacific to an expanded Indo-Pacific approach, in particular, officially renaming the U.S. Pacific Command to Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) in 2018. The Trump administration also initiated the renewal of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) with the gathering of the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia at their inaugural foreign ministers' conference in 2017.
Yet Trump 2.0 inherits a much more complicated regional order than in his first term. The Biden team has set up a strong security order with new alliances such as AUKUS (Australia, UK, US), the Squad (US, Japan, Australia, Philippines), and enhanced trilateral relationships with South Korea and Japan. The question is now whether Trump's transactional style of diplomacy will impact the hard-won relationships.
Early signs are that economic rivalry with China, more than security collaboration, will be the hallmark of Trump's Indo-Pacific strategy. This could have a profound effect on regional affairs, especially concerning the AUKUS deal. Although there is robust bipartisan political support for AUKUS in Congress (with around 80% Senate and 75% House support), Trump's track record of reversing international agreements is worrying. The administration could insist on greater financial commitments from Australia, which has already committed significant funds to UK and US defence industrial centres. The fate of multilateral alliances such as the Quad is unsure under Trump's transactional approach to diplomacy. While the countering of China's ascendant power is still a prime diplomatic priority, Trump's focus on economic concerns has the potential to trump security considerations. This prospect has already given rise to unease among regionally based traditional US allies about their position in America's strategic thinking.
Even ASEAN's status as a centre of US Indo-Pacific Strategy may be uncertain. The most probable escalation of economic competition with China by the administration may compel regional allies to navigate ever more intricate diplomatic seas. The economic emphasis might give way to a lessening of attention to the diplomatic and security arrangements created under the Biden administration's "Diplomacy First" strategy. Marco Rubio's nomination and the placement of China hawks in influential positions imply ongoing strategic competition with Beijing, but the character of this competition could change from Biden's multilateral to Trump's more direct, confrontational approach. The cabinet appointments of the administration signal a likely resumption and escalation of the trade war with China that defined Trump's first term.
As the Indo-Pacific region contends with these shifts, US partners and allies will have to retool their strategies to preserve their security interests in the midst of potentially treacherous U.S.-China relations. How effectively America balances economic interests against the necessity to preserve vital security alliances in a growingly precarious region will decide the success of Trump 2.0's Indo-Pacific strategy.
China, Russia & Trump 2.0
*Shaoni Guha Mazumder
China
Trump's return to power as the 47th President of the United States is likely to have significant implications for all of the world's major powers. His presidency will play a crucial role in shaping their domestic and foreign policies. In particular, the reactions of China and Russia will be of great interest, considering their ongoing rivalry with the US.
Many believe that Trump 2.0 is likely to bring negative repercussions for China. This is mainly because Trump’s first four years have left little room for optimism. During his first term, Trump initiated a new phase of deteriorating China-US relations, marked by actions such as a trade war, the China Initiative, sanctions on Chinese tech companies like Huawei, and strong criticism of China’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, among other measures. His successor, Joe Biden, not only inherited Trump’s China policies but also exemplified them in substance. While campaigning for his second term, Trump also threatened to impose a 60% duty on Chinese products. It was Trump who first signed an executive order in 2020 warning China could use TikTok to conduct disinformation campaigns, build data dossiers for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage on US soil.
Although the prospect of a second "cold war" under a potential Trump 2.0 presidency appears increasingly likely, it is important to note that China seems prepared for the competition and rivalry, particularly in areas like trade and technology. In anticipation of potential economic challenges posed by Trump’s tariffs, China has been quietly and strategically expanding its trade and investment networks. It has strengthened its relationships with ASEAN and bolstered the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). China has also been methodical in enhancing its ties with the Arab world and expanding its economic presence in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Furthermore, the thaw in India-China relations, marked by Xi’s meeting with Modi at the recent BRICS summit, led to a de-escalation of military tensions and promises of increased trade. In Australia, Premier Li Qiang’s visit in mid-2024 helped revitalize Sino-Australian relations. This marks a significant improvement in ties with two key Quad members, showcasing China’s growing influence. All of these efforts underscore Beijing's preparedness to handle external economic pressures. While Trump may threaten tariffs, China is actively positioning itself to play the long game.
When it comes to China-US relations under a potential Trump 2.0 presidency, Trump’s transactional leadership style and unpredictable nature leave room for some cautious optimism. In a series of positive moves toward China, Trump made a point of inviting Chinese President Xi Jinping as a special guest at his inauguration and held a phone call with him to discuss issues like trade, fentanyl, and TikTok — the Chinese-owned app that Trump is now working to protect from a U.S. ban. Trump also revealed that he’s considering 10% tariffs on Chinese products, much lower than the 60% duties he had previously threatened during his campaign. These developments could be advantageous for China, and how China capitalizes on Trump’s transactional approach and unpredictability will likely shape the future of China-U.S. relations.
Russia
Russia-US relations have been historically characterized by competition and conflict. Over the years, this dynamic has been shaped by a complex interplay of various factors such as ideology, security, and geopolitical interests. Under Trump’s administration, Russia-US relations entered a unique phase, with controversies and shifting strategies that sparked widespread debate and concern. The Russia-Ukraine war further severed the ties between the two countries. The US imposed sanctions on Russia, targeting its economic, energy, and defence sectors. However, such sanctions failed to be impactful, and Biden’s containment strategy failed to weaken the Russian economy. Conversely, Russia has been able to rebuild its economy and its military-industrial complex, still receiving Western components for weapons production via intermediary third countries.
Donald Trump's opinions on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine have changed over time, frequently mirroring his more general "America First" foreign policy stance, which favours American interests over those of other countries. Trump minimized Russia's invasion of Ukraine in the early going of the conflict and frequently expressed his appreciation for Russian President Vladimir Putin, referring to him as a "genius" and saying that the United States would benefit from a positive relationship with Russia. Additionally, Trump implied that he could have avoided the war if he had been president at the time, asserting that his firm posture in his first term had dissuaded Putin from acting so aggressively. Trump has questioned the level of US support for Ukraine while also criticizing the country's engagement in foreign conflicts that don't immediately benefit the United States. He has frequently argued that the United States should concentrate more on its own issues and less on foreign conflicts by framing the country's response to the war in terms of the financial toll it will take on American taxpayers.
Therefore, the likelihood of a halt in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is greatly increased by Donald Trump's election. He made repeated claims that he could put an end to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in a day during his election campaign. He hasn't yet presented his peace plan, but the ideas of his team suggest that the war could be stopped, Ukraine's NATO membership could be delayed for at least 20 years, and a demilitarized area could be established along the front line—all without the use of American financial and human resources for peacekeeping. Moscow's conviction that the situation in Ukraine is improving favourably is only bolstered by the Trump administration's attempt to shift blame to Europeans. Consequently, the victory of Donald Trump significantly raises the possibility that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine would end. Throughout his presidential campaign, he often asserted that he could settle the crisis between Russia and Ukraine in a single day. His team's ideas indicate that the war could be halted, Ukraine's NATO membership could be postponed for at least 20 years, and a demilitarized zone could be established along the front line—all without the use of US financial and human resources for peacekeeping. He has not yet unveiled his peace plan. The Trump administration’s effort to place the blame on Europeans only serves to reinforce Moscow’s belief that things are getting better in Ukraine.
Trump's strategy has been to focus on the other "strongest" person in the room while frequently ignoring other interested parties. This implies that any peace talks between Trump and Putin are likely to go awry and take place on a bilateral basis, a strategy Putin has supported. It's unclear, though, if Donald Trump is prepared to accept all of Vladimir Putin's demands, which would inevitably result in Ukraine's interests being given up and the US position being weakened.
Trump's business-oriented outlook leads him to believe that China poses a greater danger to US hegemony than Russia. He views Russia mostly as an ideological foe, with whom the US may engage in dialogue and reach an agreement. Thus, Trump’s return to power will have serious bearing for the future of Russia-US relations.
Climate, Energy & Trump 2.0
*Soulina Dey
In an era when “Climate Action” is at its peak, the series of executive orders pertaining to climate and environment introduced by the Trump administration immediately after swearing-in for a second term as the US President, has turned heads. Although these decisions might come as no surprise as his actions in his current term had been foreshadowed by the environmental policies during his previous term.
The first term of the Trump administration was characterized by substantial shifts in US environmental policy, primarily focused on deregulation and promoting fossil fuel development. Trump had approved controversial projects such as the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, opened public lands and offshore areas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), for oil and gas drilling, implemented the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule to replace the Clean Power Plan of the Obama-era and withdrew from the Paris Agreement, citing concerns about its impact on the US economy and industries. These measures were often framed as efforts to prioritize economic growth, energy independence, and job creation, particularly in the energy and manufacturing sectors. His second term appears to follow a similar trajectory.
One of his first actions after joining office was reverting to his earlier stance of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, which the US had re-joined under the tenure of Biden administration. This withdrawal means that US is not bound to meet the emission restriction goals or any financial commitment to United Nations Framework Convention on climate change. The executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy,” was issued by Trump shortly after his inauguration, prioritizes domestic fossil fuel production over renewable energy and rolls back regulations limiting such activities. The administration revived coal mining, expanded offshore oil drilling, and fast-tracked natural gas projects. Trump has also declared an “energy emergency” citing “high demand for energy and natural resources to power the next generation of technology” as a justification. This approach provides the coal industry a golden opportunity to revive itself, despite its decline due to economic and environmental challenges, through the subsidies and relaxed regulations proposed alongside the energy emergency. On the other hand, the administration is imposing limitations the growth of renewable energies, exemplified by the setbacks to wind power development caused by the withdrawal of the Offshore Continental Shelf from leashing wind energy.
The "Unleashing American Energy" executive order also revokes Biden's directives under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) which was supposed to jumpstart clean energy market trends and technologies, including electric vehicles, through clean energy incentives. Federal funding for the expansion of electric vehicle charging stations in the US has been halted and Trump is likely to repeal the tax credits, for the purchase of electric vehicles, approved under the IRA. The executive order declaring the energy emergency also targets the Endangered Species Act, which provides habitat protections to endangered species, as a hurdle for energy development. President Trump’s motto “drill, baby drill”, directs agencies to accelerate the permitting and leasing of energy and natural resource projects in Alaska, including liquefied natural gas projects, and end related environmental restrictions that would derail such efforts. The Trump government is also likely push for the dissolution of the Office of Environmental Justice created under Biden administration to address historical inequities in pollution and resource allocation.
While many of these new orders may face legal challenges, the new environment and energy policies of the Trump administration, will surely deliver a heavy blow to the environmentally friendly policies implemented under the Biden administration that prioritized addressing climate change, focused on transitioning to renewable energy, and restored environmental protections rolled back during the first term of the Trump administration.
America’s Defence Agenda
*Prasangana Paul
President Dwight Eisenhower warned about the Military Industrial Complex 60 years ago in his farewell speech. It is still alive and thriving in Washington and consuming taxpayers' money to capitalise heavily on defence spending.
Every US President has shown a fine inclination towards defence spending to make America live without the terror of fear. Secretary of the US Department of Defence, Pete Hegseth, confirms that the Aerospace and Defence Sector is poised for a change, with more spending likely to be increased.
President Trump is reported to be executing an order for an iron dome shield to track and intercept missiles as well as destroy them before being launched at America, which is going to change Washington’s Defence dimension significantly. A similar vaunted system in Israel was developed in coordination with the US. The initiative aims to develop space-based systems capable of detecting and countering attacks. The Pentagon is tasked with accelerating research and deployment, emphasising homeland defence
“Peace through strength” is a concept long associated with realpolitik, from the time of President Ronald Raegan to the presidency of Trump, everyone firmly believes in this rooted idea. Hence, the Trump 2.0 administration is also looking forward to heavily militarising its foreign policy as well as increasing spending on the Defence sector to fulfil the “America First” policy.
Eliminating DEI programs from the federal government was a key promise of Trump's campaign, and he has acted quickly to fulfil it since taking office last week. The order bars the practice that the administration deems discriminatory based on race or sex within the armed forces, Department of Defence, and Department of Homeland Security. This aims to boost the recruitment in the military which has experienced a significant blow of failing recruitment goals by 41,000 personnel in the 2023 fiscal year.
Trump's presidency is also looking forward to reinstating service to the members who were active and reserved but were discharged for refusing the COVID-19 Vaccine. Trump wishes to reinstate the military men with full payback and regards them as unjustly expelled by the Biden Administration. Service members are typically required to receive numerous vaccines during their standard on boarding process, but the COVID-19 vaccine sparked significant controversy. Trump recognises the rallying cry and offers a reinstitution of the service.
Another significant development that needs to be observed is the strengthening of the defence ties with India, the strategic and geopolitical location of India gives America an intrinsic leverage. In early 2020, India planned to finalize a $2.6 billion deal to acquire 24 MH-60R Seahawk helicopters from Lockheed Martin. These multi-role helicopters are intended to bolster the Indian Navy's anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare operations. The deal's current status remains uncertain, and India looks forward to finalising the deal. Among the pending defence deals, India plans to acquire 31 MQ-9B Predator B drones from General Atomics, a US-based manufacturer. These drones are expected to significantly enhance India's surveillance and reconnaissance operations, particularly in the Indian Ocean Region, which has experienced heightened Chinese activity. India is also considering additional orders for six AH-64 Apache helicopters to strengthen the Indian Army's capabilities. Additionally, the agreement to co-produce F-414 jet engines for the indigenous Tejas Mark-2 aircraft will require renewed focus from the US. This deal is crucial for addressing the Indian Air Force's declining combat strength and ensuring its operational readiness.
President Donald Trump’s realist tendencies are codified in his Defence policies, the ‘Preparedness Ethos’ which gained momentum during the time of Naval Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, has also influenced Trump’s policies of Readiness for war.
*The Authors are currently Research Interns at the Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies (KIIPS).
About the Authors:
• Adrien Benito, MA Asian Studies, Geneva University, Geneva
• Biswarupa Kar, MA Political Science, Department of Politics and International Studies, Pondicherry University
• Archana Paswan, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, Ranchi University, Ranchi
• Shreya Das, MA International Relations, South Asian University, New Delhi
• Rohit Kumar Paswan, MA Politics and International Relations, Department of Politics and International Studies, Pondicherry University.
• Aditya Gulati, MA Diplomacy, Law and Business, OP Jindal Global University
• Sujal Shah, BA (Hons.) Global Affairs, Institution- Jindal School of International Affairs, O.P Jindal Global University.
• Shaoni Guha Mazumder, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, Dibrugarh University
• Soulina Dey, MA Political Science with International Relations, Department of International Relations, Jadavpur University
• Prasangana Paul, MA Political Science with International Relations, Jadavpur University
KIIPS is a premiere think-tank that intends to provide a platform to academics, researchers, scholars and experts from across the country and abroad.