Introduction

The return of Donald Trump to the White House in 2025 is not just about political resurrection but about the resurgence of the expansionist, hegemonic and transactional worldview challenging the post-1945 international order. The so-called "Trump 2.0 Doctrine" revives elements of territorial greed, lust for natural resources, hemispheric dominance, mercantilism and economic coercion as primary instruments of foreign policy [1]. This markedly contrasts with the liberal institutionalism underpinning U.S. global leadership for nearly eight decades. Instead, Trump's use of tariffs, leveraging of trade, and rhetorical claims over resource-rich regions like Greenland, Canada, and Panama show a return to 19th-century expansionism repackaged as "America First" [1][2].

End of WTO

Underpinning these changes is the weaponisation of trade as a geopolitical and foreign-policy tool. Trump's demands for allies to "pay their fair share" and his threats of punitive tariffs against Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea and the European Union undergird a worldview in which economic policy and foreign strategy are inseparable. As one commentator remarks, "Trump's rhetoric may sound theatrical, but it reflects a deeper hegemonic trend: the use of economic pressure and coercion as a substitute for direct military engagement" [1]. In this new paradigm, trade is becoming the new space for territorial aggrandisement, with coercive interdependence replacing formal conquest.

On an economic front, it is a mix of pressure and potential. The tariff-driven expansionism of Trump has already rewritten global supply chains, forcing developing economies to diversify their export destinations [1]. Yet, as the Firstpost analysis warns, "the WTO's diminished capacity to adjudicate disputes may mark a turning point in global trade" [1].

Implications for the Americas

Strategically, the U.S. revival of the Monroe Doctrine-style hemispheric focus on the American continent leads people to conclude that the US is becoming Pacifist and isolationist again. Reality is different altogether. The US under Trump 2.0 has made economic, military and expansionist threats to several countries in South America. Imposing tariffs on Brazil for prosecuting a former leader who participated in an insurrection against the newly elected government in that country does not inspire a peace-building posture. Similarly, renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America reeks of expansionist claims against Mexico, a country that lost large swathes of its territories (including New Mexico, California, Nevada and Arizona) to the US under the Treaty of Guadalupe in 1848. Mexico also lost Texas to the US around the same time under an initial demographic invasion by Yankees, followed by unilateral declaration of independence, followed by merger with the US. Wanting to take over the Panama Canal also does not inspire confidence in smaller South American nations about the peaceful intentions of the US under Trump 2.0. The Panama Canal is the sovereign territory of the nation of Panama, though it was built by the US.

Threatening Argentinian voters with the denial of fiscal aid to stabilise the economy if they voted in a different direction in parliamentary elections again reflects the interventionist postures of the US. Venezuela under Maduro faces imminent invasion and military strikes. Lurking behind the anti-drug trafficking rhetoric is the regime change threat from Trump 2.0, while gunboat diplomacy goes on in the international seas, with innocent people being killed under the garb of anti-drug trafficking operations.

Implications for the European Union and Europe:

Trump’s humiliation of Volodymir Zelensky in the Oval Office earlier during the year and subsequent arm-twisting of Ukraine to sign a mineral and rare earth deal as a precondition to deter the Russian Federation’s aggression is indicative of an expansionist and predatory, neocolonial attitude. The European Union is still negotiating a free trade agreement with the US under threat of tariffs.  Trump threatened to slap additional tariffs on all the countries with digital taxes, legislation or regulations, saying they were designed to harm or discriminate against American technology, in an escalation of his criticism of EU rules on digital services.

Both France and Germany have defended Europe's right to adopt its own legislation on technology after Trump criticised European rules on digital services, saying any US economic coercion would be met with retaliation. Trump has repeatedly used harsh, critical language toward Germany, which has been described by German and international sources as "threats," particularly concerning trade surplus, defence spending (NATO) and energy policy.

Implications for Africa

While cutting all foreign aid to Africa, Trump has threatened to bomb Nigeria for alleged violence against Nigerian Christians. It is true that there is Muslim on Christian violence in Nigeria, but constitutionally, the US is a secular country. It is a coincidence that Nigeria is an oil-rich nation, and the ultimate target may be to control Nigeria’s oil fields and hydrocarbon resources. Similarly, Trump’s giving refugee status to White South Africans while they face no persecution is geared towards creating the US as a white European nation. Trump 2.0 has expeditiously signed mineral and rare earth agreements with the Democratic Republic of Congo, a port deal with Somalia, while ignoring the civil war in Sudan and South Sudan, owing to the involvement of his cronies in those conflicts.

Implications for Asia

Fortress America and an isolationist America are the myths perpetrated by the apologists for the Trump 2.0 regime. Trump has demanded the conversion of US overseas bases into sovereign US territories and demanded that Japan and South Korea must do so to continue to have a US protective umbrella. His desire to reoccupy Bagram airport in Afghanistan as a US military base ostensibly to monitor China and covert activities in Bangladesh is cause for concern. Signing crypto-currency deals with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and mineral and rare earth resources of occupied Baluchistan, and hosting of Pakistani military strongman Asim Munir, does not reflect an isolationist foreign policy but neo-imperialism and economic colonisation. 

Implications for West Asia

Bombing of Iran in consonance with Israel, cutting deals with Ahmad al-Shara of Syria and manoeuvring to get a $400 million donation of a jet from Qatar suggests the US under Trump 2.0 is going to get its pound of economic flesh in West Asia. Trump wants his family members to have a role in the redevelopment of the Gaza Strip into a Mediterranean Riviera reflects an overt desire to usurp West Asian territory and resources for family enrichment.

Implications for India

For India, this evolution has complex implications. On one hand, a more inward-looking United States may result in fewer demands on India for military alignment in global conflicts. On the other hand, an expansionist and transactional Washington DC might destabilise prevailing norms that guarantee protection for India's strategic space-particularly within the Indo-Pacific and global trade regimes. For India, this opens the opportunity to position itself as a manufacturing hub for companies hedging against unpredictability from both China and the U.S. But it would also mean that economic coercion from Washington extends to technology, critical minerals, and energy access domains that form a vital part of India’s growing relevance.

Secondary sanctions for purchasing Russian oil and for continued development of Chabahar port in Iran are serious issues to grapple for India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has thus said that "the world is moving towards a new world order. The capability and the role of India are changing fast" [3]. His words underline the importance of agility- India must learn to navigate in a world where the United States becomes less predictable and global institutions like the WTO or UN face systemic strain [1]. This erosion of multilateral institutions implies that India must be less dependent on international arbitration and more on bilateral or regional arrangements to safeguard its interests.

Commenting on the post-Trump 2.0 landscape, External Affairs Minister of Bharat, Dr. S. Jaishankar said, "The course correction in American foreign policy was both "expected" and "not necessarily disadvantageous" for India as it hastens the advent of a multipolar world [4]." He added that "the virtues of the old-world order are somewhat exaggerated" [5], reflecting India’s readiness to settle into a less rules-based but more opportunity-rich environment. Under such circumstances, the Indian doctrine of "strategic autonomy “rooted in self-reliance and pragmatic partnerships becomes even more critical in the face of U.S. unilateralism. India, whose maritime and resources strategy is so integral to its “Atma Nirbhar Bharat” ambitions, must ensure that global resource flows and sea-lanes remain open and the rules-based international order stays.

Policy Pathways for India

1. Diversify economic and trade partnerships: The need for India is to reduce dependence on any single major power by expanding market links with ASEAN, Africa, and Latin America.

2. Strengthen maritime autonomy: The Indian Ocean must remain a zone of stability. Stronger cooperation via BIMSTEC and the Indian Ocean Rim Association will be required. The recently concluded India’s Maritime Week from 27th to 31st October, held at Mumbai with Prime Minister Modi addressing delegates from 85+ countries, is a shining example of how India is collaborating with industries across the world to drive the Maritime Amrit Kaal Vision 2047 into action and shape the future of the Global Maritime Ecosystem

3. Champion new multilateralism: As older institutions weaken, India can spearhead frameworks around digital trade, climate governance, and critical minerals. India’s position in BRICS is counterbalancing the US and China’s assertiveness 

4. Secure supply chains and resources: The expansion of the "Make for World" initiative in rare-earth, green energy, and shipping infrastructure will assist in avoiding strategic vulnerability for India.

While preserving strategic autonomy, India should cooperate on issues of mutual interest with the U.S., like defence, technology, and Indo-Pacific security, while avoiding subordination to unilaterally driven agendas. For India, this is a reality that demands pragmatism, agility, and confidence. Rather than bemoan the passing of the liberal order, India needs to shape the contours of the new one, anchor its rise in self-reliance, balanced diplomacy, and principled multilateralism. As Prime Minister Modi reminded Indians abroad, “The world is changing rapidly, and India’s capability is rising equally rapidly” [3].

Conclusions

As a conclusion, it may be said that the Trump 2.0 era is about the return of a muscular, hegemonic, mercantilist and expansionist geopolitics draped in crude economic nationalism. The renewed interest of the U.S. in the acquisition or control of resource-rich territories, whether Greenland, Canada or the Panama Canal, bespoke an emerging view of the world where sovereignty is a bargaining chip and resources are instruments of power. The challenge for the rest of the world is to turn the rise of U.S. expansionism and brute mercantilism into an enduring strategic recalibration and multipolarity amid the turbulence of American expansionism. Perhaps, the world may move to a WTO minus one trading system while individual countries cut out bilateral deals with Trump.

 

References

[1] Firstpost (2025). “Trump 2.0: Expansionist Rhetoric, Tariffs, and the New Global Order.” 31 July 2025. 

[2] The Guardian (2025). “Trump’s Expansionism Threatens the Rules-Based Order in Place since the Second World War.” 23 March 2025.

[3] NDTV (2023). “New World Order Emerging: PM Modi in Address to Indians in France.” [4] Hindustan Times (2025). “S. Jaishankar Says Expected U.S. Foreign Policy Shift under Trump Suits India in Many Ways.” 

[5] Financial Times (2025). “The Virtues of the Old World Order Are Somewhat Exaggerated: S. Jaishankar.”