Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 has reignited intense debate over the direction of U.S. foreign policy. Often portrayed as erratic or purely transactional, Trump’s approach may instead reflect deeper strategic thinking rooted in American foreign policy traditions. A widely discussed analysis by historian Stephen Wertheim highlights three coherent frameworks that could explain the logic behind Trump’s actions as he seeks to preserve and reassert American power in a changing world.
These theories are not mutually exclusive and may overlap in practice. They challenge the post-1945 liberal international order and prioritize “America First” principles. Each carries distinct goals, potential rewards, and significant risks.
1. Trump as a Foreign Policy Realist
The first theory views Trump as a classic realist — or “realist businessman” — who rejects idealism, democracy promotion, and the “rules-based international order” in favor of raw power calculations and concrete national interests.
In this framework, foreign policy is transactional and zero-sum. Trump aims to end costly overseas entanglements through pragmatic deals, demands greater burden-sharing from allies (particularly pressuring NATO members to increase defense spending), and pursues bilateral agreements even with adversaries like Russia or China. Rhetoric centered on values and human rights, prominent in the Biden era, is sidelined in favor of hard-headed interest-driven decisions.
The goals are straightforward: secure economic and security advantages for the United States, avoid military overextension, and extract better terms from both partners and rivals. Potential rewards include a more honest U.S. posture abroad and opportunities to weaken adversaries through skillful deal-making. However, the risks are substantial — weakening alliances like NATO, potentially emboldening Russia in Europe, and forcing European nations into a difficult choice between rapid rearmament or appeasement.
2. The “Reverse Kissinger” Diplomatic Coup
The second theory suggests Trump is attempting a bold geopolitical maneuver reminiscent of — but reversing — Henry Kissinger’s 1972 opening to China. While Kissinger split Beijing from Moscow during the Cold War, Trump may seek to peel Russia away from its deepening partnership with China.
Under this approach, the U.S. would offer Russia sanctions relief, economic incentives, normalized relations, and cooperation on issues such as nuclear arms control or regional conflicts involving Iran and the Houthis. This could include efforts to renew key nuclear treaties set to expire in 2026.
The strategic objective is to fracture the “no-limits” Sino-Russian axis that strengthened during the Biden years, thereby gaining leverage against China and creating breathing room for broader U.S. strategy. Success could yield intelligence gains, reduced global tensions, and a weakened rival partnership. Yet the risks remain high: Russia and China’s alignment is rooted in deep structural factors, including shared opposition to U.S. dominance, joint military exercises, and growing economic ties. Past U.S. attempts at resets with Russia have often failed, and Moscow may accept concessions without genuinely distancing itself from Beijing.
3. A Vision of Geopolitical “Spheres of Influence”
The third theory posits that Trump is moving toward — or tacitly accepting — a 19th- and early 20th-century model of international order in which great powers exercise dominant influence over their respective regions.
In this vision, the United States would assert clear supremacy in the Western Hemisphere (evident in discussions around Greenland, the Panama Canal, or even provocative comments about Canada), while implicitly acknowledging Russian influence in parts of Europe and Eurasia, and Chinese influence in East Asia. This would allow Washington to offload security responsibilities elsewhere and concentrate resources closer to home, echoing historical doctrines like the Monroe Doctrine.
The goals include expanding U.S. strategic assets where possible, securing the homeland, compelling allies to handle their own defense, and striking pragmatic bargains among the major powers to limit entanglement. Potential benefits are reduced fiscal and military costs for the U.S. and a more focused grand strategy. The risks, however, are profound: ceding ground in Ukraine or Taiwan could invite further aggression; smaller nations may resist being relegated to spheres of influence; and interconnected global theaters mean concessions in one region could destabilize others. Critics warn this could lead to a more violent and unpredictable world order.
Strategic Implications
Whether Trump’s foreign policy aligns most closely with realism, a diplomatic realignment, or spheres of influence — or a combination of all three — remains an open question. What is clear is that his “America First” agenda represents a deliberate break from recent U.S. strategy, emphasizing national interest over global leadership as traditionally defined.
As events unfold in Europe, Asia, and beyond, these competing theories offer valuable lenses for understanding the trajectory of American power. None is without trade-offs, and each tests the resilience of long-standing alliances and institutions. The coming years will reveal which framework — if any — best captures Trump’s enduring strategy.
About The Author
