- Share via
“I run the country and the world,” President Trump boasted to reporters for the Atlantic in April, by way of explaining how his current presidency differs from his first. Even for the clinically braggadocious Trump, that was a mouthful.
Yes, alas, he does run the country, with a bold recklessness like no president before him, and often lawlessly. He’s virtually unchallenged by a supposedly co-equal Congress run by obeisant fellow Republicans who are scared of him and his voters, and he’s only partly limited by federal courts that are constrained, as he’s not, by fealty to the slow and deliberative rule of law.
But Trump running the world? That’s hardly clear. As often as not, the world seems to be running him.
Yes, Trump is wielding power and forcing global leaders and foreign economies to react to his diktats. He’s inflicting incalculable damage: by his hostility to the United States’ longtime democratic allies and to the 80-year-old international structure that’s bound them; by his shameful deference to the world’s dictators; by his global trade war; and not least, by his near-wipeout of U.S. humanitarian aid resulting in the confirmed deaths of uncountable numbers of the globe’s poorest people.
Yet there is no peace between Ukraine and its Russian invader, despite then-candidate Trump’s frequent claims he’d settle the worst European conflict since World War II even before he got to the White House. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doubling down on his scorched-earth war in Gaza, though Trump told his pal Bibi last year to end the killing, before Trump took office. Talks with Iran are reported near collapse on a deal to prevent the country from building nuclear arms, replacing the Obama-brokered pact that was doing just that before Trump scrapped it.
And despite White House bluster in April about cutting 90 trade deals in 90 days, as nations pleaded for relief from Trump’s tariffs, no final agreements have been announced by the self-described artist of the deal.
For more than a century, as the United States evolved from an isolated giant buffered by two oceans into the world’s superpower, people here and abroad have looked to American presidents’ early actions and pronouncements to discern a guiding doctrine. After all, not just Americans but all the globe’s residents have a stake in U.S. policies — as HIV-infected children in Africa, Ukrainian soldiers, foreign traders and consumers, and many others are sadly finding.
A Trump Doctrine is easily discernible in the president’s foreign policy record: It’s “Me, Myself and I.”
Aside from his vague “America First” (white) nationalist sloganeering, Trump speaks and acts in ways that reflect little appreciation for the national interest or democratic ideals. He’s all about himself and his interests — increasingly, that literally means his business interests. Trump’s foreign policy is strictly transactional, motivated by what’s in it for him, personally and politically.
Which is why, contrary to past presidents for decades, Trump twice now has made his first foreign trip as president not to allies in Europe or North America who share America’s values, but to autocratic Saudi Arabia. There, and in the smaller, oil-rich Middle Eastern monarchies he also visited last month, Trump is plainly comfortable, amid the opulence and the shared language of deal-making. In fact, Trump explicitly told reporters soon after his inauguration that he’d likely travel first to Saudi Arabia — if it agreed in advance to spend about $500 billion in the United States. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman gamely offered $600 billion over four years.
Ultimately, Trump came home from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates boasting of bagging $5 trillion — that’s trillion, with a T — or maybe $7 trillion, he said, along with a Qatari royal jet for his own use. What details there were suggested that the trade deals for which the president was taking credit — no surprise here — included some commitments dating to the Biden administration.
In any case, Americans shouldn’t necessarily count on the promised investments: Saudi Arabia’s MBS similarly vowed to spend up to $600 billion in the United States back in 2017, when Trump first took office. Yet a study by the Arab Gulf States Initiative concluded that over Trump’s first term, U.S. exports to Saudi Arabia totaled $92 billion — below the $110 billion in exports during the preceding four years under President Obama.
But here’s what you can count on: As the Wall Street Journal has reported, the Trump family business is signing more deals internationally than ever before, mostly in the Middle East but also in India and eastern Europe, for 12 projects including residential high-rises, luxe hotels and golf courses. Beyond real estate, there’s the Trumps’ $2-billion cryptocurrency deal with the United Arab Emirates state fund. America First?
“We’re the hottest brand in the world right now,” son Eric Trump, who runs the Trump Organization, told the Journal. That’s good, I guess, because the American brand under Trump has hit the skids.
The other noxious sign of Trump’s personalization of foreign policy: his constant references to foreign leaders in terms of his own relations with them. Trump’s problem is that his supposed friends — the Saudis’ MBS, Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping — have ideological and national interests that, unlike for Trump, transcend their personal feelings and stakes.
And so MBS resists making peace with Israel, as Trump wants, if Israel won’t support a Palestinian state. And Netanyahu vows he’ll never do so. Xi has avoided taking a phone call with Trump to talk U.S.-China trade. Meanwhile, Putin plays Trump along in the U.S.-sponsored peace talks with Ukraine; he doesn’t want peace, he wants all of Ukraine.
Only Trump, then, was surprised by Putin’s murderous air attacks in recent weeks. “I’ve always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him,” Trump posted. “He has gone absolutely CRAZY!” The Kremlin dismissed Trump as “emotional.”
That’s what happens when you think you run the world, and the world has other ideas.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article portrays Trump’s foreign policy as self-centered and transactional, emphasizing personal and political gains over national or democratic interests. This is exemplified by his focus on securing business deals for the Trump Organization during diplomatic engagements, such as agreements with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have yielded limited economic benefits for the U.S. but enriched his family’s enterprises[1][4].
- Critics argue that Trump’s approach has destabilized global alliances and institutions, including NATO and international trade frameworks, by prioritizing unilateral actions like aggressive tariffs and withdrawing from multilateral agreements. His hostility toward democratic allies contrasts with overtures to authoritarian regimes, undermining America’s traditional role as a guarantor of global stability[1][2].
- The administration’s foreign policy is described as ineffective in resolving critical conflicts, such as the Russo-Ukrainian war and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite Trump’s claims of rapid solutions. Failed negotiations and escalating tensions with China, Russia, and Middle Eastern partners highlight a disconnect between rhetoric and outcomes[3][4].
Different views on the topic
- Supporters frame Trump’s foreign policy as a corrective to decades of perceived U.S. exploitation, aiming to rebalance trade relationships and reduce military commitments abroad. The “escalate to de-escalate” strategy, involving aggressive tariffs and demands for burden-sharing, is seen as a necessary disruption to outdated global arrangements[2][3].
- Advocates argue that Trump’s alignment with authoritarian leaders and economic nationalism strengthens U.S. leverage in negotiations, citing reduced immigration and reasserted influence in Latin America as successes. Policies like the Monroe Doctrine’s resurgence and tariff-based trade wars are framed as protecting American interests from foreign competition[3][4].
- Proponents highlight the administration’s focus on bilateral deals over multilateral frameworks as a pragmatic shift, enabling tailored agreements that prioritize U.S. economic dominance. The push for NATO allies to increase defense spending and the restructuring of USMCA are cited as examples of this recalibration[2][4].
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
In this episode, we discuss the history here, what lessons were learned — and not — and how that can inform what we we do this time around as we attempt to rebuild Altadena and the Pacific Palisades.
This week’s episode covers the sentencing and future legal proceedings for “The Ketamine Queen” — the doctor who pled guilty to supplying Matthew Perry with ketamine.
This week, “A Matter of Degrees,” hosted by Dr. Leah Stokes & Dr. Katharine Wilkinson, discuss how insurance companies are failing to accommodate for the impacts of climate change.
