In case you missed it, we got a new president. When that happens, there can be a massive shift in policy—domestic, economic, monetary, and foreign. Foreign policy, in particular, is difficult to understand simply due to the immeasurable context surrounding different nations. While not every transition results in dramatic change, some do. Today, I will explain important foreign policy phenomena using the Trump administration’s first month as a case study, contrasting it with shifts under President Biden.
Background
The United Nations (UN), a coalition of 193 countries meant to cooperate on common goals such as human rights, peace and security, and sustainable development, recognizes 195 sovereign countries. Some people confuse the United Nations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). After World War II, there was a growing threat developing in Eastern Europe and North Asia: the Soviet Union. Fearing another global conflict, a dozen countries signed a treaty committing to the principle of collective defense: an attack against one is an attack against all. Over time, the 12-country treaty expanded into what NATO is today—smaller than the UN and concentrated in North America and Europe. While NATO tends to focus on military initiatives, the UN focuses more on global diplomacy and security.
Nearly 200 countries exist in the world and the United States thrives at the top militarily, economically, and diplomatically. When a new president takes office, there is a major shift in America’s global posture.
The US Constitution grants the president the position of chief diplomat—he is responsible for negotiating treaties on behalf of the country. The State Department, within the executive branch, is responsible for advising and implementing the president’s foreign policy agenda. Marco Rubio heads the department as the 72nd Secretary of State. The State Department works closely with the intelligence and defense agencies in order to negotiate with as much information (or leverage…) as possible.
When it comes to presidential power, foreign policy has the potential to affect the largest number of people. US foreign policy actions can have drastic effects on physical security, cybersecurity, transportation, food security, and the survival of billions.
Here’s how the Trump administration has affected the world thus far.
Russia/Ukraine
After a fiery conversation last week between President Trump and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, many have wondered how we got here.
The Soviet Union, or USSR, inherited the Russian Empire’s mix of nationalities and territories after the Russian Revolution in the early 1900s. By 1945 it also controlled allies in Eastern Europe that were officially independent, including Poland and Hungary. When the USSR regime fell in 1991, these eastern nations actually gained independence, while several non-Russian countries, such as Ukraine, also became sovereign states. Because of this historical connection, Vladimir Putin, the current Russian head of state, believes Ukraine should either rejoin Russia or be under heavy Russian influence.
Russia saw an impending threat when NATO began allowing previously Soviet-controlled countries to join its ranks. After a pro-Russian government failed to get Ukrainians on board with joining Russia via voluntary agreement, Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. There was then a leadership change in Ukraine and eventually Russia invaded more territory in 2022.
The current war, which has been raging since 2022, is highly politically charged. Many Americans believe an isolationist strategy is the way to go. That is one where a country avoids entanglements with other countries and instead focuses on domestic affairs. The Biden administration opted for a more supportive strategy, in which the US government joined other European nations to provide billions of dollars worth of military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
Trump hates a bad deal. He believes that Europeans are getting a much better deal than the United States when it comes to support for Ukraine. Trump wants to rectify this inequality by making European countries “pay their fair share” in NATO as well as in defense of Ukraine (once again, NOT a NATO country). Over the past three years, the US has sent over $100 billion in aid to Ukraine—the most of any country in the world.
Some argue that aid to foreign countries should be based on GDP, to which the US has contributed the 12th most out of 45 countries. To Trump, this doesn’t matter. The fact that the US is an ocean away but contributing more to the defense of Ukraine than every country in Europe combined means that America got the short end of the deal. European countries provided loans, grants, and guarantees in order to support Ukraine while also making some of their money back. When it comes to military aid, the United States has provided the vast majority of weapons and equipment—non-refundable assets, for the most part.
President Zelenskyy visited the White House on February 28 to discuss a deal that would give the United States 50% of the mineral rights in Ukraine, a country rich in titanium, lithium, and uranium, among other valuable deposits. Zelenskyy insists on a firm security guarantee for Ukraine because of Putin’s persistent tendency to break agreements and treaties. The mineral rights would help the United States recoup money sent in aid over the past three years. The conversation ended poorly, with President Trump and Vice President Vance berating President Zelenskyy for his “disrespect” in the Oval Office.
As of March 2, 2025, the deal has not been signed. The questions remain: Will Zelenskyy concede the rights to Ukrainian minerals? Will there be a security guarantee in the mineral rights deal? Will the United States withhold aid until the mineral deal is signed? Or will President Zelenskyy find another way—a way without America?
Israel
The conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people is long-standing and complex. A glimpse into the events of the past century will help explain why the struggle continues today.
Israel has been a major cultural site throughout history. After World War II, a partition plan was made by the United Nations to divide Israel into land allotted for Israelis and Palestinians. Despite ongoing efforts for peace, tensions between these two groups have remained high for decades, with disputes over borders, settlements, and sovereignty often leading to violence.
On October 7th, 2023, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), a Palestinian nationalist political organization deemed a terrorist group by the UN, carried out an attack on Israel. Thousands of Hamas soldiers crossed the border of the Gaza Strip to rape and murder more than twelve hundred Israelis and take over two hundred of them hostage. The following day, Israel declared war on Hamas.
Similar to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Americans disagree on how the United States should involve itself with the current Israeli conflict. After a year of bloodshed, the Biden administration was met with serious pushback, mostly from its ultra-progressive supporters, for allowing US weapons to be used by Israel to attack Hamas. The dissenters’ position isn’t that Israel should avoid defending itself from the terrorists, but that Israel’s response to the October 7th attacks was excessively punitive, overly punishing innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Humanitarian concerns led many countries including the United States and Japan to issue weapon embargos on Israel. This action was a bargaining chip and part of the Biden administration’s plan to negotiate a three-phase ceasefire deal, which was announced on January 16th.
Keep this in mind when considering the ceasefire deal: the Israel military has taken thousands of hostages, mostly Hamas-aligned troops. There were about 251 hostages taken by Hamas on October 7th, some American. Stage one of the deal includes a release of 33 hostages (women, children, and some older men) by Hamas and a release of about 1,900 Palestinian prisoners by Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu was the first foreign head of state to visit the White House during the second Trump administration. In a press conference, Donald Trump described the state of the Gaza Strip as dangerous and precarious. Because of this, Trump says, “the US will take over the Gaza Strip…we’ll own it.” He also ended the US arms embargo and mentioned our withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council, which he believes to be ineffective in supporting Israel.
Most Americans would consider this move unequivocally pro-Israel. It is clear the Trump administration sees value in supporting Israel while also promising to help rebuild the rubble that is present-day Gaza, which, in turn, helps the Palestinian people.
“You are the greatest friend Israel has had in the White House.”
– Bibi Netanyahu, 2025
We have yet to see what an American military occupation of Gaza will look like. As of March 1, 2025, Secretary Rubio approved nearly $12 billion in foreign military sales to Israel, repealing many Biden-era executive orders. This week marks the next phase for the agreed upon ceasefire deal.
Closing
You can see throughout both cases that Donald Trump has the surprisingly effective foreign policy doctrine of America First. Supporting another country’s war comes at the cost of Ukrainian mineral rights. Helping the people of Palestine rebuild the Gaza strip comes at the cost of US co-ownership. But this is what the people voted for. While foreign policy tends to have a miniscule impact on the way Americans vote, the Trump administration is staying true to many of the promises made on the campaign trail, including earning back the losses caused by years of war during the Biden administration.
If you’d like to keep track of foreign relation policies, the US State Department is a good place to look. Marco Rubio and his office are constantly publishing press releases with new information regarding foreign affairs. Alternatively, the White House publishes articles, briefings, statements, fact sheets, presidential actions, and remarks every week.
I recognize the complexity of these situations. An op-ed is in no way the best forum to fully capture the cost of war and diplomacy. If you believe something important has been left out of the brief synopses above that does a disservice to the average college student reading this piece, please feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section below. As always…
The opinions expressed within this piece represent the views of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Jefferson Independent.
Leave a Reply