Afrasianet - Mohamed Al , Minshawi - The first 100 days of US President Donald Trump's second term marked a  sharp departure from decades of bipartisan consensus on the foundations and principles of U.S. foreign policy , on which none of the 13 presidents who have alternated in Washington since the end of World War II have disagreed.

No one expected Trump to deal with global affairs and issues in his second and final term in office like his predecessors, Republicans or Democrats, nor the speed and intensity with which he moves to reorient his country's foreign policy away from the decades-old paths.

Over the past 100 days, Trump has reflected broad ambitions and adopted decisive policies to which he has added more excitement by expressing his desire to expand his country to the territories of new countries and territories with which he aims to change the map of the long-stable US border.

Trump has entered the line of complex international crises such as the Ukraine war , the aggression on Gaza and the Iranian nuclear file, while repeating that China  is the most threatening issue to US hegemony.

By analyzing his positions and statements over the first 100 days, his foreign policies can be summarized in 3 points:

First: America is the victim

Trump arrived at the White House leaning on the leadership of a new right-wing populist American current that American history has never known. This current was called "Maga" (Make America Great Again), which united the ideas of different groups in their orientations and goals, and contradictory in their economic and educational backgrounds.

The Maga movement understands  traditional international cooperation as a threat to their personal freedoms and the sovereignty of their states, and opposes  the United Nations ,  the International Court of Justice, NATO and the World Trade Organization as violating the sovereignty and interests of the United States. For his part, Trump makes no secret of his disregard and cynicism for the "rules-based international order."

In his inaugural address on January 20, 2025, Trump spoke of wounded American nationalism, betrayal and a more radical vision. He devoted part of his opening speech to the idea of a "clear destiny," and that "American expansion is our divine right."

All this imperialist talk can be vocal. But it is also possible that Trump will feel liberated in his second term to change his "America First" doctrine that he has leveraged for political gain for years, and make US expansion  a key element of his legacy.

Trump thus appears to be adopting a nationalist foreign policy that he sees as more equitable to material U.S. interests that previous administrations have ignored. He does not want Washington to spend on the cost of having military bases to protect some countries, especially the rich ones.

The next administrations in the post-Trump era are not expected to change this approach, which is supported by Republicans and Democrats. Foreign policy nationalism may usher in a new political doctrine or doctrine for future White House governors.

Second: The desire to achieve a legacy and personal glory

Trump seeks to achieve an expansionist personal legacy for his country and win the Nobel Peace Prize . Hence he invoked the greatness of America and the need to restore its dignity, explicitly linking this to a return to regional expansion. Washington has a long history of this. 

In his inaugural address, Trump said, "The United States will once again see itself as a growing nation, a nation that increases our wealth, expands our lands, builds our cities, raises our expectations, and carries our flag to new and beautiful heights."

He announced several expansionist steps, from buying the island  of Greenland from Denmark, to controlling the Panama Canal, to annexing Canada to become the 51st US state. He had also previously proposed the idea of his country owning the Gaza Strip and turning it into the Middle East Riviera, but later backed down.

Trump's desire for the Nobel Peace Prize is also evident, and his eagerness to reach a deal that stops the fighting between Russia and Ukraine is understandable. Once in the White House, he halted military aid toKiev,  calling for a "negotiated peace" with Moscow and criticizing the war as a drain on U.S. resources.

He has pressed NATO allies to increase defense spending or risk reducing Washington's security commitment to them, while exploring a "deal" with Russian President Vladimir Putin to freeze the conflict in exchange for limiting NATO expansion.

The Trump team is also working to reach a deal to stop the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip in a way that satisfies Israel in the first place, and finally began serious push to resolve the crisis of the Iranian nuclear program.

Gregory Koger, a professor of law and political science at the University of Miami in Florida , says Trump's repeated desire to expand the U.S. territory reflects two common goals: a populist ambition to expand the country's borders, and a personal ambition to increase U.S. territory as part of his presidential legacy.

Third: China First

Trump is driven largely by his firm belief in the danger of Chinese threats as the only source of U.S. global hegemony: the idea of buying Greenland, controlling the Panama Canal, and annexing Canada stems from the angle of confronting Beijing in the future. 

At a time when the United States spends 3.4 percent of its GDP on the defense budget, or about a trillion dollars, Trump has demanded that NATO countries increase their military spending to 5 percent of their GDP so  that the Pentagon  can focus its military and economic power on containing and controlling China.

What he is doing toward imposing tariffs on Beijing can only be understood from the standpoint of confrontation that he sees as inevitable with it, and that it should not be military in the first place.

Trump's expansionist rhetoric has undermined his country's national security by weakening its security alliances around the world, especially with Western Europe, South and East Asia. It contributes to the skepticism of Washington's allies to rely on a country whose president and commander-in-chief do not rule out the use of force to invade the territory of a NATO ally.

Stephen Sistanovich, a former State Department official, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations and professor emeritus at Columbia University, said that if Trump sticks to expansionist claims, "it will inevitably become part of the administration's agenda, but his top foreign policy advisers should think of this as presidential madness with limited chance of success."

"With high costs, and practically no real payoff, are they going to tell Trump what they're really thinking? Maybe not. Will they work hard to achieve his goals? It's also very doubtful."

Some commentators see Trump as saying these things as a negotiating tactic to take advantage of concessions on issues such as trade deals, raising NATO defense spending and tough on China. However, the vision of the countries of the world is different from what he sees and his circle of advisers.