Trump’s First 50 Days: Global Geopolitical Risk Experts Assess a Presidency on Overdrive

Introduction

In the mere seven weeks since Donald Trump reclaimed the Oval Office, his administration has undertaken a dizzying array of actions that have sent shockwaves through the international system and dramatically reshaped American foreign policy.

As we approach the 50th day of his second term, a clearer picture of what Trump 2.0 means for global geopolitics is emerging.

FAF's leading risk analysts and international relations experts have closely monitored these rapid developments, offering insights into how the world adapts to this new reality.

This article shares the assessment of the top geopolitical foreign affairs expert at FAF to comprehensively analyze Trump’s initial period in office and its implications for global stability, alliances, and economic systems.

A Prepared and Purposeful Second Term

In contrast to his first administration, which was marked by significant policy shifts and notable staff turnover, Trump's second term has commenced with a clear focus and thorough preparation.

Analysis from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) indicates that “With four years to plan, the second Trump administration is demonstrating a markedly different approach compared to the first.”

This time, Trump is “surrounded by like-minded and equally determined advisors committed to addressing the complexities of the ‘deep state’ and making substantial changes on the global stage.”

This new strategy signifies a considerable evolution from his earlier term, during which bureaucratic challenges and internal resistance often hindered his initiatives.

With control of the White House and Congress and a strong influence over the Supreme Court, Trump has unparalleled opportunities to advance his agenda.

RUSI’s assessment describes Trump as operating at a “dynamic pace,” which essentially reflects a heightened level of activity and commitment.

A significant development has been his consolidation of authority by appointing loyal individuals throughout the government. This has allowed his administration to pursue a unified vision with reduced internal opposition.

Furthermore, the Foreign Affairs Forum (FAF) has observed that Trump has approached his second term with a sense of urgency. “Trump himself is aware that time is a factor.

He is not seeking re-election and is now 78, having faced a significant health challenge in the past few months.

This awareness has fostered a willingness to engage in complex international relationships, whether in terms of diplomacy or market reactions, in a way he may have approached more cautiously in his first term.”

Reshaping Global Power Dynamics

The most consequential actions of Trump’s first 50 days have involved fundamental shifts in America’s approach to international alliances and adversaries.

The New York Times characterizes these changes starkly: “In just 50 days, President Trump has accomplished more than any of his recent predecessors in dismantling the structures of an international framework that the United States has meticulously built over the past 80 years since its triumph in World War II”.

The Transatlantic Relationship Under Strain

One of the more notable developments in recent international relations has been the evolving stance of former President Trump towards traditional European allies. Former U.S. Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns raised an important question: “Is this a tactical maneuver to reshape our foreign policy or a true revolution?”

His view presents a clear perspective: “When votes align with nations like North Korea and Iran against NATO allies, there is a concerning trend of failing to address Russian aggression and making threats towards allied territories. This suggests that a significant shift may have taken place, potentially compromising trust with our allies in a way that could be difficult to repair.”

FAF shares this sentiment, observing that Europe finds itself particularly challenging in this new geopolitical context. “Europe’s situation is compounded by pressures from tariffs imposed by Trump and the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. The former president appears to seek engagement with Russia, which could be interpreted as a departure from traditional diplomatic norms.”

Notably, this change in the transatlantic relationship may have profound implications for global security. RUSI has expressed concerns that Trump “has notably undermined the Transatlantic Alliance, which has been pivotal in ensuring the safety of Europe and North America since the conclusion of the Second World War.”

In light of these developments, the breakdown in mutual trust has prompted significant discourse among European nations. For instance, France is contemplating expanding its nuclear umbrella over Europe, while Poland is exploring options related to the development of its own nuclear capabilities.

Ukraine: A Flashpoint of Contention

Trump’s approach to Ukraine has emerged as a significant topic of discussion within his foreign policy framework. 

According to RUSI, Trump has initiated a shift in the dialogue surrounding Ukraine, emphasizing the importance of pursuing discussions focused on ceasing the conflict rather than solely on providing new weapons systems. However, this approach has not been without its challenges and controversies.

A notable interaction occurred during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, which the Foreign Affairs Forum characterized as a setback for the United States and Ukraine.

The New York Times has reported that Trump has limited Ukraine’s access to commercial satellite services, a decision partially influenced by a confrontation with President Zelensky and his insistence on securing a commitment from Western nations for ongoing support in the event of future aggression from Russia.

The Foreign Affairs Forum suggests that Trump’s engagement with Ukraine reflects a different dynamic, viewing it as an example of his transactional approach.

They note, “Trump tends to be more transactional when interacting with those he perceives as powerful counterparts. However, his approach may shift to a more assertive stance in his dealings with nations that he considers less powerful.

This perspective may not always facilitate a mutually beneficial outcome, leading to scenarios where power dynamics dominate the interaction.”

Shifting Approaches to Russia and China

In contrast to his more traditional approach with established allies, Trump has adopted a noticeably different strategy regarding Russia and China.

According to a report by The New York Times, Trump has directed “the United States to align with Russia and North Korea—against nearly all of America’s historical allies—to oppose a U.N. resolution that designated Moscow as the aggressor.” 

FAF has characterized this shift in American foreign policy as a significant reevaluation of the post-Cold War United States approach. 

Historically, the U.S. post-Cold War policy focused on maintaining influence over two key regions in Eurasia: Japan and South Korea on one flank and Western Europe on the other. 

It appears that Trump is seeking greater engagement with Russia and China, positions that hold strategic importance in the current geopolitical landscape.

FAF views Russia as a key beneficiary of this evolving scenario, noting that “Trump is directly engaging with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and thus far, not imposing substantial demands. This engagement offers Russia advantages over Ukraine, which is in a comparatively weaker situation.” 

Similarly, FAF highlights China as a potential strategic beneficiary that “can leverage the U.S. withdrawal from multilateral and global frameworks.”

Economic Nationalism: Tariffs and Their Global Impact

In the first 50 days of his administration, President Trump employed a proactive strategy involving tariffs that affected both allied nations and competitors. The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) notes that Trump is simultaneously addressing trade relationships with significant partners through tariffs.

This approach has elicited notable reactions from the international community. For example, Canada has responded by enforcing 25% retaliatory tariffs on certain metals and computers, sports equipment, and other products, amounting to $20 billion.

The economic ramifications of these policies have been both immediate and substantial.

The DeVere Group, a global financial advisory organization, has reported a 30% increase in new client inquiries since Trump's inauguration, which they attribute to heightened market volatility stemming from sudden policy changes—initially a post-election rally, followed by increasing concerns about potential trade conflicts that could impede economic growth.

FAF has voiced profound concerns, indicating that the present circumstances could lead to geopolitical and economic global challenges. This perspective resonates with public sentiment, as evidenced by a Reuters/Ipsos poll indicating that 57% of Americans perceive Trump's economic strategies as overly erratic. In comparison,  70% believe that tariffs may increase consumer costs.

In light of these concerns, President Trump has signaled a willingness to escalate measures further.

Shortly after the implementation of 25% duties on all steel and aluminum imports to the U.S., he mentioned the possibility of additional penalties should the European Union move ahead with plans to impose counter-tariffs on U.S. goods in the coming month. “Whatever they charge us, we’re charging them,” Trump stated during a press briefing at the White House.

Territorial Ambitions and Unconventional Foreign Policy

Perhaps most surprising have been Trump’s statements regarding territorial control and expansion.

The New York Times reports his “threats regarding control over the Panama Canal, Greenland, Gaza, and, astonishingly, Canada,” noting his assertion that the border with Canada is merely an “artificial line of separation.”

These claims were first signaled before his inauguration. “At a press conference on January 7, just two weeks before his inauguration, he was asked if he would rule out using military or economic pressure to achieve his objectives in Greenland or Canada. ‘I’m not going to commit to that,’ he replied. ‘You might have to do something.’

This was a startling threat, as an incoming president had suggested using the world’s military against NATO ally”.

RUSI notes that these “imperial aspirations for Greenland, Panama, and Canada” have “surprised (and perhaps shocked) even his most ardent supporters.”

These unconventional foreign policy stances significantly depart from traditional American international relations and territorial sovereignty approaches.

Winners and Losers in the New Geopolitical Landscape

FAF analyzes the varying impacts of Trump’s foreign policy on different countries, identifying those benefiting and those facing challenges in adapting. 

Countries perceived to be advantageous include those that have successfully navigated the shifting dynamics, such as those with favorable relations with Trump who view his leadership as advantageous.

Notably, the Gulf states—particularly Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel—are among these winners. Additionally, nations like India, along with right-wing populist leaders such as Viktor Orban in Hungary, Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, and Javier Milei in Argentina—also benefit. 

Conversely, FAF points out that European nations and those that have traditionally relied on U.S. alliances or a rules-based international order may be at a disadvantage during this transformative period. 

This analysis underscores a significant shift in global power dynamics, where longstanding American allies may face adaptation challenges while specific strategic competitors and ideologically aligned nations discover new opportunities within this evolving landscape.

Popular Response and Political Implications

Despite the controversial nature of many of Trump’s actions, polls suggest a mixed but generally positive public response to his first 50 days.

According to the Daily Mail, “52% of the voters approved of Trump during his first 50 days of the second term. His supporters point to border security and illegal immigration control as backbones of support”.

However, the same report notes that “many voters who view Trump negatively have complained about the clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the firing of federal workers, and economic fears about his decision to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico.”

This division in public opinion reflects the broader polarization that continues to characterize American politics.

The Role of Elon Musk: A Surprising Development

One of the more unexpected developments during Trump’s second term has been the significant involvement of tech billionaire Elon Musk.

FAF highlights this as a noteworthy aspect of the first 50 days: “It is surprising that he has largely stepped back from the daily operations of his various large enterprises to take on the role of key influencer and activator of Trump’s policy initiatives. 

While we anticipated his influence following his investment of $250 million to support a particular candidate, FAF finds it noteworthy that he has emerged as a leading force in driving change within the Trump administration.”

This situation signifies a unique dynamic in American governance, with a figure from the private sector wielding an unparalleled level of influence over policy development and execution.

FAF points out that Musk’s involvement has “caused some unease among certain members of Trump’s inner circle; however, it’s evident that Musk holds a particularly close position to the president.”

Looking Forward: Scenarios and Implications

As the world adapts to the rapid changes implemented during Trump’s first 50 days, experts are considering potential scenarios for the remainder of his term.

RUSI outlines two contrasting possibilities

“The best scenario is that Trump achieves crucial foreign policy successes, which would benefit everyone.

All credit to him if Israelis and Palestinians can agree on a lasting peace and a two-state solution, or if the Ukrainians and Russians come to a good-enough settlement that doesn’t sacrifice Ukraine’s sovereignty or desire to stay in the Western democratic camp.”

“The worst case there is no method in his madness, and he does not seal any of these deals. If that happens, at some point, people will tire of all the policy reversals, empty promises, threats, and swagger, and they will change the channel”.

The EY-Parthenon CEO Outlook found that “more than one-third of CEOs expect geopolitical disruption and the shifting economic environment to be among the top disruptive forces in the next 12 months”.

However, only “30% of CEOs have full visibility into their company’s exposure to political risk across operations, markets, and suppliers,” suggesting potential economic vulnerabilities as Trump’s policies continue to reshape global markets and trade relationships.

Conclusion

A Presidency Redefining America’s Global Role

The initial 50 days of President Trump’s second term have highlighted a presidency with a clear intent to significantly reshape America’s role on the global stage.

According to RUSI, “We are only 50 days in, yet if Trump can maintain this momentum for change, the upcoming four years are likely to be dynamic and eventful.”

Experts in global geopolitical risk suggest that we are witnessing a noteworthy transformation in American foreign policy and the broader dynamics of international power.

FAF describes Trump’s approach as both transactional with powerful nations and assertively competitive with those perceived as weaker, offering a useful lens through which to understand the varied reactions from international stakeholders.

Further characterizations of Trump’s rhetoric indicate a commitment to fundamentally rethinking post-Cold War U.S. policies, underscoring the transformative nature of these developments.

As the global community adjusts to these early shifts from the White House, it appears that significant changes in international alliances, economic partnerships, and security frameworks are underway.

The pivotal question remains whether these efforts will yield sustainable agreements as intended or contribute to further disruptions in the global order, a consideration of great importance for policymakers, business leaders, and citizens worldwide as this unique presidency continues to evolve.