By Anderson Conkle

Abstract

This article revolves around the forceful confrontation in the Oval Office earlier this year over a ceasefire deal in Ukraine which directed much attention to the foreign policy of the Trump administration. This article posits an alternate understanding of the Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy and begins to dissect such an approach’s implications on the nation and world.

On the morning of February 28th, 2025, President Trump, Vice President Vance, and President of Ukraine Volodomyr Zelensky met in the Oval Office to discuss plans for a ceasefire in the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In the now infamous video, Vice President Vance demanded of President Zelensky: “You should be thanking the President for trying to bring an end to this conflict…Do you think it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?…Have you said ‘thank you’ once during this entire meeting?”1 What ignited these incendiary responses from the Vice President? Zelensky’s assertion that the United States is not immune from feeling the effects of conflict. “During war, everybody has problems—even you. But you have [a] nice ocean and don’t feel [it] now, but you will feel it in the future. God bless that you will not have war…but you will feel [the] influence,” Zelensky stated.2 Only hours later, Trump posted on his media platform, Truth Social, about Zelensky, “He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”3

This outburst by the President—practically unparalleled in modern times—is not an exception to his demonstrated approach to foreign relations. Days before the confrontation in the Oval Office, Trump reposted a 30-second video clip made with generative AI imagining a shining, golden “Trump Gaza.”4 Between frames picturing Elon Musk eating on a beach and bearded Hamas militants belly dancing, viewers are treated to a shot of President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu lounging on two pale, adirondack chairs by a pool, a sign behind them reading “Trump Gaza” above a heart. Although not created by the administration, the President’s endorsement signals an intensification in the US’s support for Israel, ignoring the nominally-critical “red-line” model used by the previous administration.5 Similarly, Trump’s posts about the European Union mark a distinct change in the decades-long partnership. On March 13th, Trump posted on Truth Social, “The European Union … was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States”6 after many European Leaders responded to Trump’s tariffs in kind.

Though these positions appear confusing and mutually exclusive, the references to asymmetrical relationships and demands for politeness betray a truth about the Trump administration’s approach to foreign relations. It is not enough to merely maintain a web of marionette strings tugging in different directions; the puppet’s arms must be within reach for grabbing. To Trump, any outstanding relationship is only as valuable as the speed it takes to actuate a change. Thus, the global soft power wielded by the US and upheld by neoliberal bureaucracy—a system that has facilitated the previously unipolar world of the 21st century—becomes not a tool but a burden under which the US appears weak, inept, and unable to affect tangible change.

With this realization, MAGA’s constant self-victimization becomes clearer. In its worldview—above all—foreign countries should make themselves available and useful to the US. Any pushback against the administration’s goals are seen as disobedience and a betrayal of the proper way of the world. Ukraine shall not expand beyond being a silent pawn for political control, and so Zelensky should only express thanks to President Trump. Gaza serves less as a site of conflict and more as an open stretch of land ready for Trump’s resorts. The European Union, in all of its neoliberal commitments, is only a bureaucratic block against Trump’s dreams of annexing Greenland and broadening the scope of American conservatism. Here, we finally reach a coherent view of what Trump envisions for the foreign relations of the future: raw power is upheld as the prime currency, and the only politics are ones of prostration.

As stated, this marks a significant change from the historic foreign policy of the United States. Soft power has been the consistently-relied upon method for influencing change as far back as the Monroe Doctrine.7 As such, there is little to no legal precedent in written law or policy that can be pointed to as shaping Trump’s advances. Likely, this shift will have just as much of an impact on the nation as it will internationally. It’s unbelievable to think that the country could be moved to a boots-on-the-ground war at this current moment, but this possibility should not be ignored as outright conflict is the language through which countries adhering solely to power communicate. Trump’s increasingly-contemptuous rhetoric regarding illegal immigrants could act similarly to President Johnson’s Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and related speeches in how they increased public support for the Vietnam war. It feels important to note that “The determination of all Americans to carry out our full commitment to the people and to the government of South Viet-Nam will be redoubled by this outrage”8 sounds remarkable similar to Trump’s own “The cartels are waging war in America, and it’s time for America to wage war on the cartels”9 during the most recent Presidential Address to Congress earlier this year.