Trump and the Disruption of the Policy Status Quo

Since assuming office on Jan. 20, President Donald Trump has discarded the domestic and foreign policy handbooks that have governed the U.S. government for decades.

Domestic Policy

At home, Trump has moved to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across the federal government and universities and sought to ban transgender individuals from the military. He has also pursued funding cuts for scientific research.

In the budgetary arena, billionaire Elon Musk, close advisor to the president, has claimed to find immense amounts of fraud and waste in the federal budget. Additionally, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), plans to dismantle several governmental departments. Trump has also taken controversial approaches toward deporting migrants, both documented and undocumented.

Along the way, Trump’s actions have raised profound questions about the relationship between the legislative and executive branches.

The scale of Trump’s actions is matched by their speed. Trump has appointed a Cabinet, some of them contentious, committed to his “America First” agenda. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a traditional conservative Republican, appears to be an exception.

Project 2025, a guide to governance prepared by the conservative Heritage Foundation, seems to heavily inform the Trump administration’s approach. The speed of Trump’s initiatives has also left the Democrats disoriented. The almost daily initiatives have made it difficult for groups opposing the administration’s orders and actions to develop a coherent message.

Foreign Policy

Trump’s changes in foreign policy have been no less dramatic. Conflicts with Colombia and Panama occurred within days of assuming power. The president expressed an interest in acquiring Greenland from Denmark and repeatedly stated a desire to make Canada “the 51st state.” He may have done so in jest, but Canadians across the political spectrum were not amused.

Tariffs

His tariff policy has been more consequential. This has included intermittent levies on goods from Mexico and Canada, in part to encourage the countries to address fentanyl trafficking, despite conflicting evidence on the issue. There are also tariffs on other countries, including China, along with threats to impose them on members of the EU and others. Following the various tariffs has now become a bewildering task for businesses and others, as potential targets shift by the day.

President Trump’s interest in tariffs transcends their instrumental use in persuading countries to, say, reduce drug trafficking or stem undocumented migration to the United States. Notably, he has declared his support of tariffs for fiscal reasons.

His predilection for tariffs is roundly critiqued by mainstream economists, who believe that tariffs will likely pass on extra costs to businesses and American consumers. Notwithstanding these expert evaluations and the tariffs’ current effects, a deep faith in the efficacy of tariffs appears to be one of the president’s core beliefs.

Middle East

In the Middle East, Trump’s remarks on turning Gaza into a new “Riviera” — likely driven by his long experience in property development — unsettled regional players who were concerned that Trump’s plan would lead to the removal of refugees to nearby states. The idea of major refugee movements was immediately rejected by Israel’s Arab neighbors. Such relocations would represent a major security challenge to Egypt and an existential threat to Jordan.

The fighting in Gaza continues, despite efforts to forge a ceasefire. A two-state solution — a long goal of the United States — remains remote.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, the weakening of Iran’s strategic position and the fall of the Asad regime in Syria have created opportunities for the United States. The Trump administration, as it did in its first term, will likely take a firm line with Tehran on its nuclear program and support for anti-American groups in the region. The administration has also indicated an interest in reviving talks aimed at curtailing Iran’s nuclear weapon capacity. Relations with Tehran be complicated by increased U.S. attacks on the Houthis, an Iranian client, in Yemen.

Europe

The situation in Europe is without precedent. President Trump’s push to negotiate a peaceful end of the Russia-Ukraine war has led, for instance, to the administration’s temporary military aid freeze to Ukraine and a friendly approach toward President Vladimir Putin of Russia. Indeed, Trump has accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — without any evidence — of bearing responsibility for Russia’s invasion. President Trump’s proposed peace deals appear to provide U.S. support for Ukraine in exchange for a share of the country’s critical minerals — a large break from traditional U.S. diplomacy. Negotiations for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine continue.

Fundamentally, Trump has sent a clear signal to European NATO allies that the U.S.’ unqualified support is no longer guaranteed. And European leaders are, unsurprisingly, unsettled.

A number of European countries are strategizing on how to influence any Russo-Ukrainian-U.S. negotiations. Others have moved to announce substantial increases in military expenditures. The United States has long requested that its European allies increase their military expenditures. Yet, this shift may come at some cost to the United States, as Europe’s long-established trust in America has been eroded. As many European leaders now see the United Sates as unreliable, some NATO member are actively considering purchasing their military equipment elsewhere.

The demise of NATO may not be imminent, yet its end seems nearer than at any point since the organization’s formation in 1949. And there is talk — admittedly preliminary but concerning — of some European states and perhaps Asian nations seeking their own nuclear deterrence.

Whatever his reasons, President Trump’s policy in Europe and abroad has sowed seeds of suspicion and distrust within 70 years of transatlantic relations. If disruption was his goal, he succeeded.

Asia

Trump’s Asian policy, so far, has been less prominent compared to his policies toward the Middle East and Europe. He has continued his trade war against China. While still in the early days of the administration, Trump will likely increase pressure on the U.S.’ East Asian allies for more military expenditures and trade concessions.

Identifying Trump’s Approach

In short, the Trump administration’s domestic and foreign policies have introduced dramatic changes. With only three months into his four-year term of office, it is unclear how successful these policies will be. A number of Trump’s domestic initiatives have prompted lawsuits and federal rulings challenging his orders’ constitutionality. His tariff policy is generating more opposition as the financial markets tumble. In the Middle East and Europe, it is uncertain whether his improvisational approach will bear fruit.

It is difficult to identify a traditional strategy in Trump’s approach to foreign policy. His agenda often appears more performance-driven than policy-driven. However, several recurring themes appear across his approach.

1. A strong sense of dissatisfaction with America’s “unfair” treatment by partners, particularly in trade and military alliances.
2. Skepticism toward international organizations and traditional alliances.
3. A preference for zero-sum negotiations, where every interaction has a winner and a loser.

President Trump’s policies reflect his distinctive approach: assertive, competitive, and often deviating from the norms of conventional domestic and foreign affairs. There may be more emphasis on personality than on strategy in Trump’s worldview. America — both at home and abroad — has certainly shifted, perhaps irrevocably, from a long-standing status quo.

This publication was produced on behalf of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Wherever feasible, the material was reviewed by external experts prior to its release. Any errors are the responsibility of the author(s) alone. 

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.