The Trump administration’s foreign policy has been, at best, perplexing. Diplomatic ties appear to be of little concern. Trump and his cabinet repeatedly disparaged long-standing alliances, from NATO to the European Union, even questioning their democratic legitimacy. Economic logic offers no clearer explanation. Claiming that tariffs would revive American manufacturing and resource industries, Trump imposed sweeping duties on both allies and rivals—moves most economists argue will slow growth and aggravate inflation, straining important aspects of the modern supply chain.
Perhaps strategic interests, then? At first glance, the Trump administration appears to prioritize them. Proposed territorial acquisitions—such as Panama, Greenland, or even Canada—have been framed as matters of “national security,” citing control over key shipping lanes or access to natural resources and Arctic waters. Trump has also emphasized securing Ukrainian rare earth metals in exchange for the aid provided by the United States, which would be a meaningful boon to U.S. arms manufacturers and mining firms. These efforts, alongside sweeping tariffs, suggest a broader push toward national self-sufficiency.
However, when viewed through a strategic lens, these endeavors show limited consistency or clear direction.
Trump’s Narrow Considerations
In Ukraine, the Trump administration has been eager to accelerate peace talks with Russia, seemingly on the Kremlin’s terms. It has excluded Ukraine from peace talks, labeled Zelesnsky a dictator, and threatened to withhold intelligence and military assistance. One could argue this makes sense from a realist perspective: NATO no longer has to supply Ukraine with precious munitions and aid, the U.S. gets its minerals, and Russia might be less concerned about encirclement. But what could be more realist than continuing to support Ukraine? The U.S. and NATO have invested considerably in Ukraine’s defense but the entirety of U.S. aid commitments, $128 billion, is less than one sixth of the annual defense budget. What has it gotten in return? For one, the majority of this money has flowed directly into the U.S. defense sector, bringing much needed revitalization to Western munitions manufacturing. Losing not a single American soldier, the U.S. has seen arguably its biggest military adversary strain its economy and expend massive amounts of resources and manpower. Why the U.S. would want to release that pressure and give up a key component of containing Russian aggression (especially without NATO membership or a military presence) in the process appears unclear from a strategic perspective. The tariffs are just as nonsensical in this regard. Alienating allies will push them closer to China, weakening their commitments to the United States (military and economic) and limiting its privileged access to much needed goods like Canadian lumber.
The reason Trump’s foreign policy is so hard to understand is due to the Trump administration’s relative uninterest in the international environment and American geopolitical interests. Rather, its foreign policy primarily serves to compliment domestic policy and project Trump’s disruptive power to voters. We can understand Trump’s actions as catering to only two clear interest groups: his base and his donors. Why has Trump allowed the Kremlin to dominate peace talks in Ukraine? Because aid to Ukraine is unpopular with a plurality of Republican voters and the extent of Ukrainian sovereignty is not of great concern to them. Why is Trump imposing tariffs that by all estimates will be a detriment to the economy and the wallets of his supporters? His voters see trade deficits as responsible for the flight of high-paying manufacturing jobs and the majority see tariffs as a remedy. Syria offers an illustrative example.
Case in Point: Syria
Since 2011, Syria had been trapped in a brutal civil war that killed more than half a million people, with multiple different organizations vying for territory and control. Both the United States and Russia have been involved with the conflict, albeit to varying extents. The Assad regime, long backed by Russia, was toppled in December 2024 by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a U.S designated terrorist organization now leading the transitional government.
From a conventional foreign policy perspective, this shift presents an opportunity for the United States to displace Russian influence in Syria and support the emergence of a more stable future under a regime that may be more open to cooperation with Western powers. It is an easy opening to deny Russia its warm-water naval base in the Mediterranean Sea, which is of enormous strategic value to them.
A path like this would involve lifting the harsh sanctions inherited from the Assad regime and removing HTS’ terrorist designation. Currently, much of the Syrian economy and state revenue rely on illegal transactions and industries (the Assad regime was previously considered the world’s largest narco-state). Syria’s security is somewhat precarious as well, threatened by neighbors like Israel and Iran. Being legitimized by the United States and integrated into global trade would be instrumental to the fledgling government for moving towards stability and economic recovery.
This is not the avenue the Trump administration is pursuing. It has maintained the designation of HTS as a terrorist organization, which includes large legal restrictions on diplomacy and access to financial systems. The sanctions remain in place, somewhat inexplicably considering they were put there for acts the new government bears no responsibility for. This has allowed Israel to undermine the new regime through land grabs, pre-emptive military strikes, and partnership with religious minority groups. As a result, Russia has sought to capitalize on the power vacuum by establishing friendly ties with HTS. In exchange for formal recognition and economic assistance, Moscow is positioning itself to secure continued access to its military installations in Syria. At the same time, the U.S. has worked to broker agreements between the different rebel groups in Syria and HTS, which would seem to indicate at least unofficial support for it. The Syrian Democratic Forces – the Kurdish-dominated coalition supported by the U.S.– is in the process of negotiating the way it will be integrated into the unified military and governance structures with HTS and how it will be merged into state institutions, a move that has been endorsed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Put simply, the United States has tacitly supported HTS’s transitional government by facilitating efforts to form a unified coalition to lead the country. Yet, it continues to deny HTS formal legitimacy by upholding sanctions, maintaining its terrorist designation, and tolerating Israeli military actions that have weakened HTS’s position, ultimately pushing the group to seek support from Russia. At first glance, this strategy may seem incoherent. However, when viewed through a domestic political lens, the rationale becomes clearer.
It’s About Winning Elections, not Geopolitics
Why has Trump allowed Israel to violate ceasefire agreements in Gaza and undermine stability in Syria? Because when the network of pro-israel PACs and lobbying groups contribute millions of dollars to Republican (and Democratic) electoral campaigns, the calculus is simple. Civilian deaths in the Middle East have historically been unimportant to voters; the pro-Israel lobby, the largest part of which is AIPAC, sank tens of million of dollars in direct contributions into the 2024 election cycle; it averages almost $90,000 to the average member of congress per cycle. Why has Trump taken such an unusual approach to Syria? Largely because Syria is not a priority for most voters. Lifting sanctions or removing HTS’s terrorist designation could unnecessarily expose the administration to political backlash, particularly from the right, for supporting an Islamist group with historical ties to Al Qaeda, even if the current context has shifted.The reality is that the U.S. has not faced a genuine threat to its territorial integrity or national security since the Second World War. Even then, there has not been large-scale warfare on American soil since the Civil War. This means that American foreign policy, historically and today, is not driven by necessity, but by value judgments shaped by the messaging voters receive from politicians, businesses, and the media. Those interpreting the inscrutability of Trump’s decision making as a sign of return to the realpolitik of the 19th century are using the wrong level of analysis. The foreign policy action of the Trump administration is not a response to shifting tides in the international order; they are a reaction to changing voter sentiment and rhetorical trends within the American political ecosystem. It is a symptom of the emergent populist political culture of the United States where voters demand to be convinced that every choice begins and ends with the American people.
Edited by Samrawit Terrefe
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.
Featured image by the White House, obtained via Flickr