When Donald Trump ran for president of the United States in 2016, in just three words, he made clear what his foreign policy would be: “America First.” During his nearly four years in the White House, a foundation of facts and events has been built around these words. Since taking office, President Trump has undermined international cooperation. On his third day in the White House, he signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Asia-Pacific trade agreement. Subsequently, Washington withdrew from several international organizations and agreements, including the UN Human Rights Council and the Paris Climate Agreement. Moreover, the United States has often made important policy decisions unilaterally and in defiance of international consensus.
Donald Trump has actively criticized the transatlantic relationship, repeatedly questioned the value of alliances such as NATO, and announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Germany because Berlin spends too few resources on defense. Trump imposed duties on trade with the EU and sanctions on the Russian-European gas project Nord Stream 2. U.S. foreign policy under Trump has been marked as much by confrontation and the unbridled pursuit of self-interest as by constant personnel changes, surprises, and embarrassments. Moreover, regardless of the outcome of the upcoming presidential election in the United States, all of these changes will have a lasting impact on the behavior of other political actors. Let us list the most important of the implications.
Drawing a historical parallel, political scientists characterize Donald Trump and Andrew Jackson (the seventh U.S. president) as “non-systemic presidents. The term “non-systemic president” evolved from such a term as “non-systemic. The political dictionary interprets the term “non-systemic” as an entity at odds with the conceptual world of the environment. Trump proposed banning Muslims from entering the U.S. because the measure is consistent with wartime. As an argument, he recalled how the U.S. did the same thing to the Japanese, Germans, and Italians during World War II. Back then, the 32nd President Franklin Roosevelt authorized internment by signing the Emergency Executive Order on February 19, 1942, which authorized the military authorities to designate “exclusion zones” and move any persons from them. As a result, all Japanese citizens were forcibly removed from the Pacific Coast, including California and much of Oregon and Washington, to internment camps.
The midterm elections for Congress in the United States are very important and can affect the country’s politics. A change in the congressional majority could also affect other United States policies. Currently, the Democratic Party, represented by the current head of state Joe Biden, maintains a majority in both houses of Congress. After the election, however, the situation may change. In recent months, there has been growing public discontent over skyrocketing prices. Republicans are using this theme in the run-up to the election, stressing that policies pursued by Democrats are pushing inflation even higher.
In addition, the results of the midterm vote could affect the election of the head of state in 2024. Winning one party or the other is important in the so-called “swing states,” where voter sympathies shift from one party to another in every presidential election. In the U.S. midterm elections, the Republicans failed to win a convincing victory and make a “red wave. However, the party stands a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives in the new U.S. Congress.
Overall, U.S. foreign policy will not change much after the midterm elections. Possible problems in the functioning of the U.S. political system could have global implications, pointing to the close connection between public discontent inside the United States and the country’s political goals abroad. However, on several important geopolitical issues, the positions of both parties now converge. For example, both parties have shown agreement on supporting Ukraine, opposing China, and developing domestic production of high-tech products such as microchips.