Understanding the Landscape: Four Essential Frameworks for Analyzing Trump's Second-Term Foreign Policy

Introduction

The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second term have redefined U.S. foreign policy through abrupt reversals, aggressive unilateral actions, and institutional upheaval. Analysts and policymakers struggle to reconcile the administration’s erratic maneuvers with coherent strategic objectives.

Drawing on insights from foreign policy experts, political scientists, and geopolitical observers, the FAF publication evaluates four explanatory models for Trump’s chaotic approach: realpolitik resurgence, domestic political calculus, continuity with first-term tactics, and Republican factional infighting.

Examining these frameworks aims to illuminate the forces shaping America’s disruptive global posture.

Model 1: The Resurgence of Realpolitik

Strategic Rebalancing and Transactional Diplomacy

The Trump administration’s alignment with realist principles emphasizes power dynamics over ideological commitments. It prioritizes great-power competition with China while downgrading traditional alliances.

This model interprets abrupt policy shifts-such as pressuring NATO allies to increase defense spending and pursuing a negotiated settlement in Ukraine-as deliberate attempts to rebalance U.S. resources toward perceived existential threats.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s focus on Latin America, including efforts to counter Chinese influence near the Panama Canal, aligns with this realpolitik framework.

However, contradictions emerge. The gutting of soft-power institutions like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) undermines America’s ability to counter rivals like Russia and China in non-military domains.

Similarly, Trump’s tariffs on allies such as Canada and Mexico defy realpolitik logic, which would typically avoid destabilizing relationships with strategic partners.

The administration’s indifference to democratic backsliding in Hungary and Saudi Arabia further complicates this model, suggesting transactional opportunism rather than a disciplined realist strategy.

The Putin-Ukraine Gambit

Trump’s overtures to Russia, including sidelining U.S. envoy Keith Kellogg over disagreements on Ukraine, reflect a Nixonian willingness to negotiate with adversaries.

By offering territorial concessions to Russia in exchange for a ceasefire, Trump seeks to extricate the U.S. from prolonged conflict, freeing resources for Indo-Pacific priorities.

Yet this approach risks legitimizing territorial aggression, eroding the post-WWII norm against annexation.

Critics argue that such concessions empower autocrats like Vladimir Putin while alienating European allies, who view U.S. reliability as irreparably damaged.

Model 2: Domestic Politics as Foreign Policy

Rallying the Base Through Conflict

Trump’s foreign policy often appears tailored to domestic political theater rather than international objectives.

The abrupt closure of USAID, criticized by Senator Bernie Sanders as “Elon Musk… going after the poorest people,” galvanizes populist resentment against globalist institutions.

Similarly, tariffs targeting China appeal to manufacturing workers in swing states despite their destabilizing effects on global markets.

This model posits that Trump’s confrontational stance on immigration-including outsourcing detention to El Salvador-serves as a symbolic gesture to anti-immigration voters, even as it strains diplomatic relations.

Inverted Priorities: Israel and Free Speech Crackdowns

The administration’s unconditional support for Israel in Gaza has paradoxically driven domestic policy, with crackdowns on pro-Palestine protesters in the U.S. reflecting an unusual fusion of foreign and domestic agendas.

By conflating criticism of Israel with disloyalty, Trump reinforces his base’s cultural grievances while alienating progressive and Muslim-American voters.

This inversion highlights how domestic polarization increasingly dictates foreign policy choices, even when contradicting strategic interests.

Model 3: Continuity with First-Term Tactics

“Move Fast and Break Things” Revisited

Trump’s second-term chaos mirrors the disruptive tactics of his first term, amplified by diminished institutional constraints.

The rapid issuance of Executive orders-137 in 100 days and the purging of federal agencies through Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reflect a refined “shock doctrine” to dismantle bureaucratic inertia.

Legal challenges to these actions, including 80 lawsuits, have done little to slow their implementation as Trump leverages a sympathetic Supreme Court majority.

Unpredictability as a Strategic Asset

The administration’s oscillation between military threats and diplomatic overtures toward Iran exemplifies Trump’s belief that unpredictability keeps adversaries off-balance.

By threatening tariffs and then granting exemptions, as seen with Canada and Mexico-Trump creates leverage through uncertainty, forcing concessions before policies solidify. However, this tactic risks long-term credibility erosion, as allies and rivals discount U.S. commitments.

Model 4: Republican Factional Infighting

Nationalists vs. Traditional Hawks

Internal divisions between nationalist “America First” adherents and traditional Republican hawks exacerbate policy chaos.

Figures like Vice President J.D. Vance and tech mogul Elon Musk advocate for retrenchment from Middle Eastern conflicts and a laser focus on China, while National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Secretary Rubio push for sustained global engagement.

These tensions surfaced in debates over Yemen strikes and Ukraine aid, with Vance temporarily delaying military action before being overruled.

The Erosion of Institutional Guardrails

Trump’s growing autonomy from party elites has intensified factional strife. The dismissal of National Security Council staff at the urging of far-right influencer Laura Loomer illustrates the president’s preference for loyalty over expertise.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s clash with military leadership over diversity initiatives reflects broader ideological battles within the GOP.

This infighting produces policy whiplash as competing factions jockey for influence over an impulsive president.

Conclusion

Chaos as a Feature, Not a Bug

The four models collectively reveal that Trump’s foreign policy chaos stems from overlapping strategic, domestic, and institutional forces.

While realpolitik and domestic calculus explain specific decisions, the administration’s overall trajectory reflects a deliberate rejection of bipartisan norms in favor of disruptive, transactional tactics.

The erosion of diplomatic trust, however, carries profound risks. Allies are accelerating efforts to reduce dependence on U.S. security guarantees, while adversaries like China and Russia exploit divisions to reshape regional orders.

The Path Ahead

Future policy will likely hinge on the economic fallout from trade wars, the 2026 midterms, and Trump’s ability to consolidate control over Republican factions.

If tariffs trigger a recession or Democratic congressional gains, Trump may face renewed constraints.

Conversely, sustained GOP control could entrench his chaotic approach as a new normal in U.S. statecraft.

As analyst Emma Ashford notes, “The next four years are likely to be as chaotic as the last hundred days.” Traditional frameworks for understanding U.S. foreign policy may require fundamental rethinking in this environment.