By independent researcher Matvii Pidlisnyi

We live in a fundamentally new era where the structure of international relations and politics, as well as the principles of interaction between political players, are undergoing profound changes. This epoch is marked by a distinct shift of the political vector to the right. As a result, the world is experiencing an unprecedented wave of right-wing populism, the beginning of which was marked and led by the 45th and 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump. His victory signified profound changes not only in the internal policy of the United States but also in the foreign policy interactions of regional actors. Trump’s case is particularly remarkable, as he became the second president in U.S. history to be elected to two non- consecutive terms. This situation is exceptional because he became president twice under entirely different geopolitical conditions, providing an opportunity to assess the shift in his approaches, considering the reshaping of the global context. Therefore, there is a need to conduct a comparative analysis of his approaches to both domestic and foreign policy during the two administrations.

In 2016, Donald Trump first became president of the United States, a victory that surprised many. He ran as the Republican candidate, with Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Party as his opponent. One of the major surprises of the 2016 election was that Trump won with fewer votes from U.S. citizens (46.1% versus 48.2%) but triumphed in the Electoral College (304 to 227). In 2020, he lost the election to the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. However, in 2024, Trump won again, defeating the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, becoming the second U.S. president to win a second, non-consecutive term after Grover Cleveland. This time, despite polling predictions being on the edge of statistical error, he achieved a fairly convincing victory in the popular vote (49.8% to 48.3%) and in the Electoral College (312 to 226).

Key domestic policy issues of Donald Trump during his first and second terms

Among the key priorities of Trump’s domestic policy during his first administration were: limiting immigration, strengthening public infrastructure, cutting taxes, and repealing the Affordable Care Act, which had been passed under his predecessor, Barack Obama. His success in achieving these goals has been controversial.

Among the key components of Trump’s domestic policy was the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, passed during the Obama administration. However, despite his bold promises, Trump was unable to fully repeal it and replace it, ultimately only managing to weaken it. Consequently, during his second term, Trump did not mention this law, implying that he had no plans to attempt replacing it again. A priority for Trump’s administration was tax cuts and deregulation of the economy. Congress enacted corresponding changes to the tax code and created additional jobs. However, the outcome of this policy was a disproportionate reduction of the tax burden benefiting wealthy Americans, with only minimal relief for most citizens. His priorities on this issue did not change in his second term.

Donald Trump’s hostile stance towards the so-called “deep state” and the political establishment deserves particular attention. Both during his first and second terms, he positioned himself as an outsider fighting against the elites. However, in reality, Trump is himself a representative of the American elite and frequently appointed billionaires and establishment figures from the Republican Party to positions within his administration. A clear difference between his two terms can be observed here. During his first term, he surrounded himself with many representatives from the experienced generation of Republicans. As a result, frequent conflicts arose within his administration between Trump and the traditional Republicans, who often disagreed with his policies. Trump, however, adhered to an authoritarian governing style, demanding exceptional loyalty from his subordinates. This led to significant resistance from his staff and many influential members of the Republican Party. Considering the current political landscape in the U.S., it can be concluded that Trump learned from his first term and, during his second term, appointed only those loyal to him to government positions. Over the years of his political career, especially during the interval between his two terms, a group of individuals loyal to his policies formed within the Republican Party—known as the MAGA Trumpists—who became a prominent force. Their radicalism is a testament to the polarization of society that Trump brought about.

A central element of both Trump’s election campaign and government policy during both terms was immigration policy, a sensitive issue for American society. In his first term, Trump immediately blocked entry visas for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, and temporarily suspended the acceptance of refugees. However, his policy sparked mass protests and lawsuits, forcing him to revise these measures. The most controversial initiative of Trump’s was the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, which, according to his plan, Mexico was supposed to pay for—something that, obviously, did not happen. The wall sparked debates between the president and Congress over funding, leading to a prolonged government shutdown. Trump requested $5 billion, but Congress allocated only $1.3 billion, and the wall was not completed. The most scandalous measure in his fight against illegal immigration was the forced separation of children from their parents, resulting in the separation of 2,300 migrant families. Due to widespread outrage both within the U.S. and abroad, Trump reversed this policy in June 2018.

The greatest challenge of Trump’s first term was the COVID-19 pandemic. Donald Trump often denied the threat of the virus, refused to practice social distancing, and resisted wearing a mask. He began implementing measures too late, leading to a severe worsening of the infection and death rates in the U.S. Due to his inconsistent and weak response to the pandemic, its consequences were much more pronounced. The U.S. experienced a short-term recession, which Trump mitigated with an emergency injection of $2.2 trillion to stimulate the economy. By the time Trump entered his second term, the pandemic was officially over, so it was no longer a priority for his new administration.

Trump also altered the situation regarding the rule of law in the U.S. During his first term, he appointed three new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of whom represented the conservative direction of justice. This played a role in his criminal case during the 2024 election campaign, as the court he had formed did not convict him for attempting to incite an insurrection against the states on January 6, 2021, and did not prevent him from running for election. These appointments caused controversy, as the justices typically made decisions along party lines.

It is impossible to overlook the fact that the most sensational moments of Trump’s first term were the two impeachment cases against him. He became the first president in U.S. history to be impeached twice. The first impeachment was due to his urging a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 presidential election. Trump asked Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky to open a criminal investigation into his opponent, Joe Biden, over alleged corruption involving his son in Ukraine. This caused a major scandal in the U.S. and led to the impeachment being approved in the House of Representatives. However, it did not pass in the Senate, and Trump was acquitted. The second impeachment was due to Trump inciting a rebellion and refusing to accept the results of the 2020 election, leading to a mob of his supporters storming the Capitol on January 6, 2021. However, this impeachment also did not come to fruition. Trump’s second term has just begun, but there are no signs that he has become more cautious. On the contrary, his rhetoric has become significantly more aggressive, making it impossible to rule out the possibility that Trump will take actions that could lead to another impeachment movement. However, the chances of success for such a movement in his second term are even smaller, as Trump’s control over the Republican Party makes impeachment almost impossible.

There are no major differences in the priorities of Trump’s second administration compared to the first. The issue of combating illegal immigration remains central to his policies, but the situation has worsened during this time. The new Trump administration plans to reverse Biden’s “catch and release” policy and reinstate Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, stop granting asylum to illegal immigrants, intensify scrutiny of foreigners, and build the wall. Accordingly, he has deployed U.S. National Guard units to patrol the border with Mexico. Trump has initiated the process of recognizing Latin American drug cartels as terrorist organizations and plans to use the Alien Enemies Act to eliminate them. This has not yet happened. The Department of Justice will seek the death penalty for those who commit crimes against humanity and kill American police officers.

Additionally, Trump adheres to the “drain the swamp” principle to combat bureaucracy, specifically ending the hiring of bureaucrats except in critical areas, improving the accountability of government bureaucrats, eliminating censorship, and pushing federal workers to return to the office, as only 6% of them work in person. He also plans to abolish many executive orders. To achieve this, he has created the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which will focus on modernizing technology and software. The head of the agency has been appointed as the controversial businessman and billionaire Elon Musk.

Summing up Trump’s domestic political priorities, it can be concluded that there are no significant changes in his approach between the first and second administrations. The only notable difference is that his rhetoric has become more radical, as the problems have intensified, and he now has a much stronger influence within his party than he did during his first term. However, it is debatable whether this will help him and give him more political power. This means that he will act more decisively and boldly, though this does not protect him from having to revisit his policies in the face of opposition, as happened during his first term.

Trump’s foreign policy line during his first and second presidency

 Trump’s foreign policy during both his first and second terms was marked by significant shifts, influenced by the changing global dynamics. While domestic policy impacts only Americans and their immediate neighbors, foreign policy, due to the global role of the U.S., has repercussions worldwide. His first administration saw the U.S. move toward isolationism, epitomized by the “America First” slogan, which remained central during his second term. Trump’s foreign policy was filled with contradictions: on one hand, he sought isolation, but on the other, he bolstered the U.S. military.

Trump’s Middle East Policy

 The Middle East was one of the most productive and successful regions for Trump. He was a strong supporter of Israel, consistently defending its interests and security. In 2017, Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and in 2018, the U.S. opened a new embassy there. Despite the negative reaction from Palestinians, who saw this move as overtly hostile, Trump sought ways to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His greatest achievement in the region was the signing of the “Abraham Accords,” which normalized relations between Israel, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. This was a significant step towards peace in the Middle East, with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, playing a key role as the lead negotiator. Thus, the Middle East remains a priority in Trump’s 2024-2025 foreign policy.

However, Trump’s actions in the region were not without controversy. In 2020, his administration signed an agreement with the Taliban for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. This decision, implemented under President Joe Biden, ended in strategic defeat for the U.S. when the Taliban overthrew the Afghan government in a matter of days and took control of the country. Trump also authorized a missile strike on Syria and declared that the U.S. would continue to intervene in the Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad’s regime. At the same time, he withdrew 2,000 U.S. troops from Syria, which led to the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who strongly disagreed with the decision. By the time Trump took office for his second term, the Syrian Civil War had taken a different turn, with Assad’s regime being toppled by rebels supported by Turkey, which now seeks to assert its dominance in both Syria and the broader region. The U.S. goal in Syria fundamentally changed under Trump, but it is still too early to definitively assess his policy in this region during his second term. He has spoken vaguely about it and has not rushed to announce a full troop withdrawal, though he has claimed that the U.S. is not involved in Syria and that it is an issue for Syria itself.

Trump also took a very hardline approach toward Iran. He withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, which involved five other countries and the European Union. Even before his presidency, Trump had criticized the deal for making excessive and unjustified concessions to Iran. After leaving the agreement, he reintroduced and strengthened sanctions against Iran. He also ordered the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force, who was essentially Iran’s second-in-command and oversaw Iran’s terrorist proxy forces in the Middle East. However, it is still unclear how Trump will approach Iran in his second term, as he has not publicly signaled any changes. Given his lack of willingness to soften his approach, it is likely that his policy will remain harsh. However, Iran’s geopolitical position has shifted, as many of its proxy forces in the region have been depleted in the conflict with Israel. It is possible that Trump may attempt negotiations with Iran. Comparing Trump to his predecessors, his policy towards Iran has been significantly tougher. Barack Obama negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran and lifted some sanctions, while Joe Biden failed to restore the deal after Trump’s withdrawal but maintained the sanctions regime introduced by Trump.

In 2023, Hamas attacked Israel, which led to a prolonged military operation in the Gaza Strip. Prior to Trump’s inauguration, the Biden administration brokered a ceasefire and prisoner exchange agreement between Israel and Hamas. Trump approved the agreement but suggested that hostilities could resume. He also lifted all restrictions on arms supplies to Israel and announced a campaign against anti-Semitism in the U.S., particularly targeting universities that supported Hamas. He promised to deport all immigrants and foreign students who held anti- Semitic views.

Approach to Allies and Multilateral Agreements

 In general, withdrawal from multilateral and bilateral agreements has been a hallmark of the Trump administration. He pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement, left the World Health Organization, and ceased its funding due to the WHO’s failure to condemn China for its role in the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite President Biden’s decision to rejoin both agreements, Trump immediately withdrew the U.S. from them again after his second inauguration. In this context, Trump’s frequent threats to pull the U.S. out of NATO are problematic. During his first term, these threats were frequent, and while they have not resurfaced as much in his second term, his overall harsh rhetoric towards NATO remains. In his first term, Trump threatened not to defend NATO countries that did not meet the defense spending target of 2% of GDP. Following the war in Ukraine and the real possibility of Trump returning to the White House, many European countries have significantly increased their defense spending, with a large number meeting the target. However, upon assuming office for a second term, Trump began demanding NATO countries spend 5% of their GDP on defense.

Trade is one of Trump’s key political tools, as it allows him to exert significant influence globally. During his first term, he initiated a review of the trade agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The result was a new deal that largely replicated the previous one but accounted for the growth of digital technologies and online sales and supported the development of the U.S. automotive industry. However, during his second term, Trump severely worsened relations with Canada and Mexico. He imposed a 25% tariff on goods from both countries. Simultaneously, he introduced a 10% tariff on China, which seemed counterproductive given the antagonistic relationship with China and relatively friendly ties with Canada and Mexico. As expected, both countries retaliated with mirror tariffs. Now, Trump finds himself back in a familiar situation, where he thrives—straightforward talks about “this is mine, and this is yours, the price is this,” weighing the strength of his negotiating hand and testing political endurance. Therefore, provocative statements from Trump play to his advantage, giving him significant leverage. He currently keeps his opponent-allies on edge. As a result, Trump has the initiative in all negotiations and future actions. It is clear that he aims to frame his negotiations from a position of unpredictability and as a “moderator of power,” which gives him narrative control over the course of the talks.

Trump’s Policy on China, Taiwan, and North Korea

 Trump’s relations with China deserve special attention. Regarding China, during his first term, Trump initiated a tougher stance, imposing new tariffs and taxes on certain Chinese imports, accusing China of unfair competition and intellectual property theft. The tariffs primarily targeted steel and aluminum, aiming to boost sales of American-made products. In response, China introduced tariffs on U.S. goods, leading to the first trade war between the U.S. and China. As a result, Trump inflicted losses on American exporters and failed to stimulate demand for U.S. products. The tariff war escalated until 2019 when Trump reached a deal with China to de-escalate. However, tariffs remained, and his successor, Joe Biden, did not reduce the tariffs Trump had imposed on Chinese goods. During the 2024 election campaign, Trump threatened to introduce 100% tariffs on all Chinese goods. At the beginning of his second term, he implemented a 10% tariff, signaling his intention to test China’s reaction and gradually increase tariffs as a pressure tool. The introduction of new tariffs marks the beginning of a 2.0 trade war between the U.S. and China. Currently, Trump is proposing 60% tariffs on all Chinese goods. It is likely that Trump aims to achieve two goals: reduce dependence on Chinese imports and secure a more favorable deal. Additionally, Trump appears to use pressure on China to weaken the Russia-Iran-North Korea axis and to push China to increase imports of American agricultural products and investments in the U.S.

However, his stance on Taiwan raises concerns. Trump’s first term had a notable impact, as the tariffs on Chinese goods allowed Taiwanese companies to diversify their production in Asia and attract additional capital to the island. Trump’s administration strengthened Taiwan’s position internationally and built a strong deterrent in the Taiwan Strait. During this period, Taiwan received $18 billion in arms sales, $4 billion more than during the two terms of Obama. The process for reviewing Taiwan’s defense requests was also optimized. Trump signed the Taiwan Travel Act, allowing U.S. officials to visit Taiwan freely for official visits and for Taiwanese officials to visit the U.S. Similarly, in his second term, Trump began demanding that Taiwan increase its defense spending. He also threatened to impose new tariffs on Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, aiming to benefit U.S. semiconductor manufacturers and force Taiwan to move production to the U.S.

Trump was often criticized for his overly friendly approach toward autocrats, while neglecting traditional democratic allies. Observing his actions, it can be concluded that Trump viewed politics through a business lens, relying more on personal relationships with foreign leaders. This allowed him to establish cordial ties with Japan’s former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. However, this approach often led to compliments directed at dictators, which were not well received by U.S. allies and politicians. For instance, he attempted to resolve the conflict with North Korea by fostering a friendly dialogue with Kim Jong-un. Trump and Kim first met in Singapore in 2018, followed by two more meetings. In 2019, Trump became the first U.S. president to cross the demilitarized zone and visit North Korea. Believing in the power of personal relations, Trump aimed for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. However, Kim Jong-un was reluctant, as he directly linked the security of his regime to the possession of nuclear weapons. Not much changed during Trump’s second term. He rarely mentioned North Korea during his 2024 campaign and still believes that his good relationship with Kim will resolve the situation.

Trump’s Influence in the Context of Russia-Ukraine Relations

 US relations with Russia have been deteriorating steadily since Moscow’s short-lived democratic experiments in 1990s. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia directly interfered in the election to favor Trump’s victory. Russian government hackers breached the Democratic Party’s campaign resources and Hillary Clinton’s personal emails. Trump denied any Russian involvement in the election interference. When meeting with Putin, he stated that he trusted Putin’s words about Russia’s non-interference in the election. However, the FBI began investigating the election interference, and special prosecutor Robert Mueller, after a thorough investigation, charged six members of Trump’s campaign team and twelve Russians involved in the hack. The connection between Trump’s campaign team and the Russian government was officially proven, though no charges were brought against Trump himself, as there was no evidence of his personal involvement.

Russia’s relationship with the U.S. should also be viewed in the context of the U.S.-Russia- China triangle. Sino-Russian relations are quite close, and since these countries are too powerful in terms of resources and military strength, the U.S. must consider them carefully. It is in the U.S. interest to prevent further strengthening of this alliance. Consequently, China’s diplomatic and economic support for Russia prolongs the war in Ukraine. China and Russia are acting together to weaken American leadership on the global stage. An isolationist policy could be extremely detrimental to the United States in the context of its confrontation with China and Russia. If Trump were to disengage from the problems of Europe and Southeast Asia, which is highly unlikely, it would play into the hands of Beijing and Moscow, allowing them to more freely expand their influence in these regions. After Trump’s first term, the Russia-Iran-North Korea axis was significantly strengthened. China began to cooperate with this axis much more actively, but it should be understood that China is not interested in fully joining it. Instead, it aims to support it in order to destabilize the world. For Trump, it is important not to differentiate between these countries when shaping his policy towards them. Based on his rhetoric, it can be concluded that he is determined to confront China in Southeast Asia. In particular, attention should be paid to his new appointments in foreign policy positions. While his Secretary of State during the first term was the anti-Russian “hawk” Mike Pompeo, his new administration has appointed Marco Rubio, who focuses primarily on Asia. The same can be said about his National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz. Both adhere to a hardline stance on China and are prepared for decisive confrontation with it in the economic sphere. This suggests that Trump will also focus his foreign policy efforts on China.

In the context of relations with Russia and China, special attention should be given to the Arctic policy of the United States. During his first term, Trump sought to purchase Greenland from Denmark, but these efforts were unsuccessful. Before his second term, he began publicly advocating for the inclusion of Greenland into the United States, as Greenland is important to Trump not only for its historical legacy but also because of the need to expand control over the Arctic, since the United States is represented in the region only through Alaska. For Russia and China, this region is also extremely important, as Russia already possesses the largest fleet of icebreakers and a larger territory in the Arctic. It is worth noting that owning Greenland would allow Trump to expand military presence in the Arctic and gain access to rare earth minerals, of which Greenland is a major source. Additionally, China is involved in the Arctic, aiming to build a shorter trade route to Europe via the Arctic (the so-called Northern Sea Route) and is counting heavily on cooperation with Russia in this region.

At the time of Trump’s first administration, Crimea had already been annexed and an armed conflict was ongoing in Donbas. As we can see, the relatively friendly relations with Putin at the time could not resolve this conflict. Initially, Trump promised to lift some sanctions on Russia, but eventually, he imposed new ones. As for relations with Ukraine, they were unsuccessful for Trump. A number of scandals led to Trump forming a negative impression of Ukraine. Despite this, he became the first U.S. President to allow the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine— the Javelin ATGM, although they could only be used for training outside of combat zones. However, Trump began pressuring Volodymyr Zelensky regarding arms supplies, demanding an investigation into his election rival, Joe Biden.

However, too much has changed in the Russian-Ukrainian war since then. After Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, during his electoral campaign, Trump claimed that if he had been President, there would have been no war. He also promised to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of being elected President. However, when he was elected, we can notice certain predictable changes in his rhetoric. He claims that this war turned out to be more complicated than he had thought. Nevertheless, he has made ending the war his main priority. In general, he positions himself as a peacemaker and promises to end wars, which seems unlikely given the realities of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. It should be noted that his desire to end the war as quickly as possible, by pressuring both sides to achieve a ceasefire, does not guarantee Ukraine a just peace and does not provide clear security guarantees. He believes that Europe should bear the burden of Ukraine’s defense and therefore should deploy its forces there. Despite all of this, Putin does not see the need for negotiations and seeks to avoid them, although he outwardly demonstrates the opposite.

For Ukraine, the main risk in this process is entering negotiations from a weak position and being pressured by Trump into territorial concessions without security guarantees. Meanwhile, Trump is ready to cut military aid to Ukraine and impose harsh sanctions on Russia to bring both sides to the negotiating table. However, the real instrument of pressure on Russia to negotiate from the Kremlin’s perspective is the use of force, which can only be ensured by strengthening military aid to Ukraine. Trump has already shown multiple times that he is capable of changing his approach depending on external factors. Ukrainian diplomacy in 2024 managed to establish constructive contact with Trump and convince him of the need for a strong position for Ukraine. As a result, Trump appointed special representative for the Russian-Ukrainian war, Keith Kellogg, to resolve the war, assigning him the task of ending the war within 100 days, which also seems unlikely. Therefore, it can be concluded that such a lack of specificity and the ambiguous signals from Trump indicate that he does not have a clear plan for ending the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Within this context, it is worth noting that the political line of Trump’s second administration will still differ from Biden’s. The latter, although he helped Ukraine with more weapons than any other U.S. president, has recently been quite indifferent and built a system of “red lines” that should not be crossed in relations with Russia. In late 2023 and 2024, Biden did not show much determination in implementing his military agenda, resulting in slow weapon supplies to Ukraine, and it was extremely difficult to get approval for each new category of weaponry. For example, Biden only gave full authorization to use long-range missiles against Russian territory after North Korea’s army joined the conflict. Thus, in order to distinguish himself from Biden, Trump needs to be more decisive and accelerate arms supplies to Ukraine. However, so far, he has not shown such intentions. He condemned Biden for allowing long-range strikes, but notably, he did not revoke this decision when he became president, indicating that he intends to pressure Russia militarily as well. The problem is that the fear of escalating the conflict is also present among members of his team, who criticized Biden for insufficient help to Ukraine.

Conclusion

 In summary, it is important to note that Trump became a symbol of the rise of right-wing populism, and although he heralded the revival of American isolationism, he simultaneously conducts an active foreign policy. He became U.S. president twice under completely different geopolitical conditions. Overall, it must be understood that Donald Trump demonstrates adaptability and a certain unpredictability in his behavior, which is useful in dealing with dictators but harmful in relations with allies. Trump is quite confrontational towards NATO allies. His first term was marked by an increase in his influence in American politics and a rise in isolationist sentiments globally. He showed determination in dealing with Iran and its proxies in the Middle East while displaying incompetence in attempting to resolve the conflict on the Korean Peninsula. His first presidency was also marked by numerous scandals within the U.S. and a fracture in relations with the EU and NATO. The relevant situation now is that Trump’s second term has only just begun, and it is important to consider that too little time has passed to adequately assess the results of his policies or even any strategic plans. More time is needed to evaluate this. It should be noted that Trump’s second administration will be a period of testing for Ukraine, as it will be necessary to end the war on favorable terms for Ukraine, considering the risks of halting military assistance and territorial losses. For Ukraine, this means the need to focus on convincing Trump of the Kremlin’s unwillingness to negotiate and the necessity to maintain arms supplies, at least under credit terms, as Trump desires. However, the risk does not mean the absence of prospects for victory in the confrontation.