Potential Impact of a Second Trump Presidency on Global Stability

Introduction

A second Donald Trump presidency would likely bring an “America First” approach back to U.S. foreign policy. Trump’s first term was marked by unconventional decisions that disrupted alliances and challenged adversaries. This analysis examines how a Trump 2.0 administration might affect global stability and conflict risks. It considers Trump’s past foreign policy moves, his relationships with key world leaders, his stance on international institutions, and major geopolitical flashpoints (from Russia-Ukraine to China-Taiwan and the Middle East). Expert opinions and historical parallels are also highlighted to gauge whether a renewed Trump doctrine would escalate tensions or possibly de-escalate certain conflicts.

Trump’s Past Foreign Policy: Decisions and Consequences

Trump’s 2017–2021 term saw dramatic shifts in U.S. foreign policy. Key decisions and their consequences included:

• Withdrawal from International Agreements: Trump pulled the U.S. out of multilateral accords like the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). Exiting the Iran deal in 2018 led Tehran to resume uranium enrichment, amass a larger stockpile, and shorten its breakout time to a possible weapon (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). This “maximum pressure” strategy hurt Iran’s economy but strengthened hardliners and brought no new agreement. Similarly, leaving the climate pact and agencies like UNESCO and the UN Human Rights Council signaled a retreat from global cooperation (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card).
• Trade Wars and Tariffs: Trump pursued aggressive trade policies, notably a tariff war with China. He imposed tariffs on Chinese goods to force Beijing into economic concessions. China retaliated in kind, and U.S. consumers and farmers bore much of the cost (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). Structural issues like China’s tech practices remained unresolved (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). Relations spiraled downward during Trump’s term (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card), contributing to a steep decline in U.S.-China ties. Other trade moves included withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on day one and renegotiating NAFTA. The new USMCA deal with Canada and Mexico was only a modest update to NAFTA (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card), and Trump’s unilateral approach meant lost opportunities for a united front with allies on trade issues (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card).
• No New Wars – But Close Calls: Unlike his predecessors, Trump did not start any new major military conflict (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). He even sought to wind down U.S. troops in places like Afghanistan and Syria. However, his impulsive actions brought the U.S. close to conflict at times. In January 2020, he ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, prompting Iranian missile strikes in retaliation. Observers noted this assassination brought the U.S. and Iran to the brink of war before tensions cooled (Trump’s reckless Middle East policy has brought the US to the brink of war). In 2017, Trump’s “fire and fury” rhetoric toward North Korea raised fears of a clash, until diplomacy intervened. These episodes show that while Trump avoided long-term interventions, his brinkmanship created spikes in conflict risk.
• Alliance Strains and NATO Pressure: Trump repeatedly castigated U.S. allies for “free-riding” on American security. He demanded NATO members spend more on defense, even musing in private about pulling the U.S. out of NATO (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). His pressure did have some effect – by 2024, more than two-thirds of NATO countries were on track to meet the 2% GDP defense spending target, up from far fewer a few years prior (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). Yet the way Trump handled allies frayed relationships. European leaders and Canada were shocked when Trump initially refused to affirm NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense pledge (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). U.S. allies did increase defense budgets, partly due to Trump’s threats (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO) (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card), but at the cost of eroding trust in America’s commitments.
• Middle East Shifts: Trump’s Middle East policy had mixed consequences for stability. On one hand, his administration brokered the Abraham Accords in 2020, normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states (UAE, Bahrain, etc.), which was hailed as a diplomatic success (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). On the other hand, Trump’s unabashed support for Israel (moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem in 2018) and Saudi Arabia (standing by the kingdom despite the Khashoggi affair) alienated Palestinians and aggravated the Iran-Saudi rivalry. His withdrawal from Syria in 2019, done abruptly, enabled Turkey’s incursion against the Kurds and expanded Russia’s influence in the region. In sum, Trump’s first-term foreign policy combined bold moves (some yielding agreements) with disruptive reversals of prior U.S. commitments – leaving allies uncertain and adversaries often emboldened (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card).

Relationships with World Leaders (Putin, Xi, Kim, NATO Allies, etc.)

Trump’s personal diplomacy and rhetoric towards key world leaders were unprecedented for a U.S. president. His relationships ranged from unusually warm with authoritarian figures to openly contentious with some democratic allies:

• Vladimir Putin (Russia): Trump often spoke admiringly of Russia’s President. He insisted he wanted a “great relationship with Putin” and rarely criticized him in public (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card) (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). In a notorious 2018 summit in Helsinki, Trump appeared to accept Putin’s denials over U.S. intelligence findings of Russian election interference, shocking Washington. This deference to Putin remains something of a mystery (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). While Trump’s administration did impose some sanctions on Moscow and provided weapons to Ukraine, Trump himself was impeached in 2019 for withholding military aid to Ukraine while pressuring Kyiv for political favors (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). Critics argue Trump’s stance emboldened Putin – pointing to the fact that Putin “was waiting” for a U.S. NATO withdrawal under Trump’s second term (Bolton: Putin 'Waiting' for Trump to Withdraw From NATO in 2nd Term - Business Insider). Indeed, Trump’s affinity for autocrats like Putin and reluctance to condemn Russian aggression (even after Putin invaded Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014 and intervened in Syria) signaled a sharp break from past U.S. policy (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?).
• Xi Jinping (China): Trump’s relationship with China’s President began cordially but soured over time. Early on, Trump touted a “great relationship” with Xi and hosted him at Mar-a-Lago. However, Trump prioritized confronting China on trade and technology issues. When Xi did not yield on North Korea or trade practices, Trump launched tariffs and export bans. The two leaders maintained civil personal ties – Trump even called Xi a “friend” in public – but by 2020 Trump was blaming China harshly for the COVID-19 pandemic. Strategically, Trump oscillated between praise and provocation. For example, just before taking office in 2017, he broke protocol by speaking directly with Taiwan’s president (a move Xi saw as hostile), but Trump quickly reaffirmed the One-China policy after Beijing’s protests (How is Trump’s reelection likely to affect US foreign policy?). This suggests Trump treated relations like a negotiation, praising Xi when convenient and hitting hard when he felt it advantageous. The end result was a steep decline in U.S.-China relations; by 2020, the countries were openly in a trade and tech cold war, with mistrust at its highest in decades (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card).
• Kim Jong Un (North Korea): Perhaps Trump’s most surprising personal diplomacy was with North Korea’s leader. In 2017, Trump mocked Kim as “Little Rocket Man” and threatened “fire and fury” if North Korea endangered the U.S. But by 2018, he shifted to summitry – meeting Kim Jong Un in Singapore and later in Hanoi, as well as a symbolic meeting at the DMZ. Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to meet a North Korean leader. He even spoke of “falling in love” with Kim via exchanged letters. These reality-TV style summits garnered huge media attention but achieved no concrete disarmament commitments (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card) (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). North Korea paused nuclear tests during the dialogue period, yet never agreed to give up its arsenal. Analysts note the summits enhanced Kim’s international legitimacy while underscoring Trump’s confidence in personal deal-making (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). After talks fell apart in 2019, North Korea resumed missile tests and improved its capabilities (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). Trump’s takeaway was that his personal approach averted war, but critics say it yielded little substance, as Kim retained (and likely expanded) his nuclear arsenal.
• NATO Allies and Western Leaders: Trump’s rapport with traditional allies was often rocky. He openly sparred with leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel and Canada’s Justin Trudeau over trade and defense spending. At NATO meetings, Trump would lecture allies about unpaid dues, creating visible tension at summits. In one 2018 meeting, he even asked his aides if the U.S. should “pull out of NATO” on the spot (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). European allies were alarmed by Trump’s transactional view of alliances; he suggested U.S. defense was conditional on countries “paying up,” contradicting the unconditional solidarity NATO relies on (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). According to Trump, allies “ripped off” the U.S. by underspending on defense and exploiting U.S. protection (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO) (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO). This approach yielded some increased spending by NATO members (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO), but also an extraordinary rupture in trust. For instance, Trump at one point implied that if, say, Baltic countries didn’t meet his terms, he might “encourage [the Russians] to do whatever the hell they want” in those countries (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?) – a remark that undercut decades of security assurances. Such comments left NATO allies unsure if the U.S. would honor Article 5 in a crisis, undermining deterrence. Trump did have warmer ties with a few like Britain’s Boris Johnson (who shared some populist style) and got along with France’s Emmanuel Macron initially, but overall, NATO and EU partners steeled themselves for unpredictability. Many Western leaders privately noted that dealing with Trump was difficult, as his positions could swing dramatically from praise to punitive tariffs or troop pullout threats.
• Other Notable Relationships: Trump forged especially close bonds with some Middle Eastern strongmen. He cultivated a tight alliance with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, aligning U.S. policy with Netanyahu’s hard line on Iran and Palestine. He also embraced Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) as a key partner, downplaying human rights concerns (like the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi) in favor of arms sales and anti-Iran cooperation. Trump’s affinity for authoritarian personalities extended to leaders like Turkey’s President Erdoğan (Trump green-lighted Turkey’s offensive in Syria against U.S.-allied Kurds in 2019) and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, whom he praised. These relationships often prioritized personal rapport and short-term gains over traditional diplomacy. In contrast, Trump was openly hostile to figures like Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei or Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, sometimes engaging in name-calling and threats. In summary, Trump’s interpersonal foreign relations were highly unorthodox – marked by friendliness toward some rivals (if they flattered him), and abrasiveness toward some allies (if he deemed them insufficiently deferential or beneficial to U.S. interests). This personalized approach could greatly influence how conflicts and crises are managed (or inflamed) under a second Trump term.

Stance on Global Institutions (NATO, UN, Trade Organizations)

Trump’s worldview often clashed with the post-World War II institutions that underpin global stability. He frequently disparaged or withdrew from international organizations, favoring national sovereignty over multilateralism:

• NATO – Cornerstone Alliance Under Strain: Trump’s skepticism of NATO was a hallmark of his presidency. He viewed NATO as “obsolete” (a term he used early in his term) and argued the alliance was unfair to the U.S. financially (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). Throughout his tenure, he hammered allies about meeting the 2% of GDP defense spending goal (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). While pushing for burden-sharing is not new, Trump’s methods were unprecedented – openly refusing at first to endorse NATO’s mutual defense clause (Article 5) and repeatedly hinting the U.S. might quit NATO if changes weren’t made (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?) (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO). By one account, Trump asked his aides in 2018 whether he should “make history” and pull out on the spot (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). Second-term scenario: Former National Security Adviser John Bolton has flatly predicted that “in a second Trump term, we’d almost certainly withdraw from NATO” (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). Even if Trump stopped short of formal withdrawal, his attitude could leave NATO effectively leaderless or paralyzed (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO) (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO). European NATO members would face serious security challenges without a committed U.S., and Russia would undoubtedly cheer a weakened alliance. NATO has been the bedrock of European deterrence for 75 years; Trump 2.0 could force Europe to either boost its own defense dramatically or see NATO’s credibility collapse (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?) (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). In short, Trump’s stance threatens the integrity of the alliance – a prospect that has NATO officials and European leaders openly anxious (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?).
• United Nations and Global Governance: Trump often criticized the United Nations and its affiliated agencies, viewing them as ineffective or constraining U.S. freedom of action. His administration pulled out of the UN Human Rights Council in 2018 (claiming bias against Israel) and cut funding to some UN programs. He also announced a withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) during the COVID-19 pandemic, accusing it of pro-China bias (Can the international order survive Trump 2.0? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank) (Can the international order survive Trump 2.0? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank). (The withdrawal was later reversed by his successor, but it highlighted Trump’s distrust of global institutions even amid a global crisis.) Trump’s team slapped sanctions on the International Criminal Court officials when the ICC probed U.S. actions (Can the international order survive Trump 2.0? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank). At the UN General Assembly, Trump’s speeches emphasized nationalism and sovereignty: “The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots.” This philosophy meant less U.S. support for collective action on issues like climate change, migration, or conflict resolution. A second Trump term might further sideline the UN – potentially cutting U.S. contributions (the U.S. is the UN’s top funder) and vetoing more Security Council resolutions that clash with his agenda. The result could be a weaker UN role in mediating conflicts and setting global norms.
• International Trade and Treaties: Trump was openly hostile to multilateral trade frameworks he felt disadvantaged the U.S. He withdrew from the TPP on day one, threatened to pull out of the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute system, and blocked appointments of WTO judges, crippling its ability to arbitrate trade disputes (Can the international order survive Trump 2.0? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank) (Can the international order survive Trump 2.0? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank). He preferred bilateral deals where he believed the U.S. had more leverage. Trump also renegotiated trade terms with allies (like the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA into USMCA), often with minimal consultation of partners. In a second term, Trump has floated ideas of imposing universal tariffs (e.g. a blanket tariff on all imports) which would defy WTO rules (Can the international order survive Trump 2.0? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank). Such moves could ignite trade wars on multiple fronts and undermine the rules-based trading system that has governed global commerce for decades. International financial institutions and agreements (like the G7/G20 or IMF/World Bank consensus) could also see less U.S. engagement. The broader impact on stability is economic: allies fear a Trump-led return to protectionism could destabilize markets and strain relations, while rivals like China might capitalize by forming alternative trade blocs (as China did with the RCEP after the U.S. left TPP (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card)).
• Arms Control and Treaties: Another institution of global stability has been arms control agreements, which Trump showed little enthusiasm for. In 2019, the U.S. under Trump exited the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) with Russia, accusing Moscow of violations. He also withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty, which allowed mutual reconnaissance flights to build trust. By the end of Trump’s term, the key New START treaty (limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals) was near expiration; Trump had not extended it, raising fears of a new arms race (it was renewed by Biden in 2021). A second Trump term might not prioritize any arms control, and could even see the U.S. testing or expanding nuclear capabilities if hawks gain influence. Without these frameworks, nuclear stability between major powers could become more precarious. Nations might build up arsenals unchecked, and the lack of treaties would remove mechanisms that have historically prevented misunderstandings and kept strategic competition in bounds.

Overall, Trump’s stance toward global institutions suggests a shift from a U.S.-led international order to a more ad-hoc, transactional global system. In Trump’s view, many of these institutions “rip off” the U.S. or constrain its sovereignty (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO). A second term could accelerate the “permanent shift” away from the post-Cold War global governance model (Can the international order survive Trump 2.0? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank). This might empower countries like China and Russia to reshape norms in their favor, and leave challenges like pandemics, climate change, or refugee crises with less coordinated responses – all factors that indirectly affect global stability and peace.

Flashpoints for Conflict Under Trump 2.0

Several geopolitical hotspots could be profoundly affected by a Trump second term. How Trump might approach these flashpoints raises questions about potential escalation or resolution of conflicts:

• Russia-Ukraine War and European Security: The ongoing war in Ukraine is a major focus. Trump has signaled a very different approach than the Biden administration’s robust support for Kyiv. He has repeatedly indicated he would seek a quick end to the war, even boasting he could resolve it “in 24 hours.” In practice, Trump’s advisers suggest this could mean pressuring Ukraine to concede territory in exchange for peace (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO). Reporting indicates Trump is mulling a deal where NATO would pledge no further eastward expansion (blocking Ukraine’s future in NATO) and allow Putin to **“keep” parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO)*. Such a deal, effectively trading Ukrainian sovereignty for cessation of hostilities, would represent a dramatic win for Putin and a blow to the international norm against forcible land grabs. It might end active combat, but at the cost of rewarding aggression, potentially encouraging future conflicts by Russia or other powers. European allies fear this outcome would undermine security far beyond Ukraine (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO). Conversely, there’s an alternate scenario: if Putin overplays his hand, Trump might react unpredictably. Some experts argue Putin could actually have reason to worry – Trump’s impatience and deal-making ego might lead him to turn on Putin if he feels fooled (How is Trump’s reelection likely to affect US foreign policy?) (How is Trump’s reelection likely to affect US foreign policy?). For example, if Putin refuses any compromise, Trump might abruptly shift to more forceful measures to assert dominance. However, given Trump’s past admiration for Putin, a U.S.-Russia confrontation seems less likely than a U.S. pullback. The broader European stability picture under Trump 2.0 is worrisome: if the U.S. scales down its NATO role and if Ukraine is semi-abandoned, Russia could be emboldened elsewhere. Baltic states or other Eastern European countries might face heightened threat without strong U.S. backing of NATO. In the worst case, a miscalculation – say Russia testing NATO’s resolve in the Baltics while Trump hesitates – could lead to a direct NATO-Russia clash. In summary, Trump’s likely approach (seeking a quick deal favoring Russia (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO)) might de-escalate the Ukraine war on terms that destabilize Europe long-term. And any perceived U.S. retreat raises the risk of a larger war in Europe if Putin’s ambitions grow.
• China-Taiwan and East Asia: The Taiwan Strait is widely seen as a potential flashpoint for a great-power war, and U.S. policy there is critical to deterrence. Under Biden, U.S. statements have been unusually explicit about defending Taiwan, but Trump has taken a more ambiguous stance. In a hypothetical scenario, Trump recently declined to commit when asked if he’d prevent China from seizing Taiwan by force, saying “I never comment on that… I don’t want to put myself in that position” (Trump declines to answer question about China and Taiwan | Reuters) (Trump declines to answer question about China and Taiwan | Reuters). Such ambiguity goes beyond the traditional “strategic ambiguity” – it may signal unwillingness to get involved. Trump has also grumbled that Taiwan doesn’t pay enough for American support, similar to his NATO complaints (How is Trump’s reelection likely to affect US foreign policy?). Beijing could interpret a Trump presidency as a window of opportunity, believing the U.S. might not respond decisively to an attack on Taiwan (Trump’s ambiguous stance on China raises the risk of accidental conflict in the Indo-Pacific | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank). At the same time, Trump’s hardline on China in other arenas (trade, technology, blaming China for COVID) could heighten overall U.S.-China tensions. This combination – economic confrontation but security ambiguity – is potentially volatile. It might embolden China to increase military pressure on Taiwan or the South China Sea, thinking U.S. commitments are shaky (Trump’s ambiguous stance on China raises the risk of accidental conflict in the Indo-Pacific | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank). Indeed, Chinese incursions around Taiwan have been rising, and any misstep or accident (like a collision in the South China Sea between U.S. and Chinese vessels) could spiral in the absence of clear red lines. Trump’s instinct might be to strike a “deal” with Xi Jinping as well – perhaps offering economic concessions or recognizing some Chinese claims in exchange for peace. Such a deal could, however, come at the cost of Taiwan’s de-facto autonomy or other U.S. ally interests (Japan, Philippines, etc.). U.S. allies in Asia, like Japan and South Korea, would be deeply unsettled if Trump’s America seems less ready to uphold defense commitments. There’s concern that U.S. deterrence in Asia could weaken, raising the risk of conflict: as one analysis warns, Trump’s muddled stance “increases the risk of accidental escalation over flashpoints like Taiwan” if Beijing perceives a lack of U.S. resolve (Trump’s ambiguous stance on China raises the risk of accidental conflict in the Indo-Pacific | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank). In essence, Asia under a Trump second term could see either grand bargains or great danger – and the uncertainty itself can be destabilizing.
• Middle East – Iran, Israel, and Beyond: The Middle East remains a region with multiple simmering conflicts that could flare up. Trump’s first term was defined by a hard stance on Iran. By leaving the Iran nuclear deal and imposing heavy sanctions, Trump increased tensions with Tehran (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). Iran responded with provocations: attacks on Gulf oil tankers, Saudi oil facilities, and breaching nuclear limits. The 2020 U.S. strike on Soleimani was the peak of this escalation, nearly triggering open war (Trump’s reckless Middle East policy has brought the US to the brink of war). In a second term, Trump would likely continue the “maximum pressure” campaign unless a new deal – on his terms – is reached. Given that Iran has advanced its nuclear program significantly since the U.S. left the JCPOA, the risk of Iran nearing a nuclear weapon is higher. Trump has said he would not allow Iran to get the bomb; this raises the prospect of military action (by the U.S. or Israel) if Iran’s program crosses red lines. A conflict with Iran could quickly involve the entire region: Iran could target U.S. troops in Iraq/Syria, close the Strait of Hormuz (choking oil supplies), and mobilize proxy militias (Hezbollah, Houthis) against U.S. partners. Israel-Iran tensions are another flashpoint – Israel might feel even more backed by Trump to strike Iranian nuclear sites. In 2020, reports suggested Trump even asked about options to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). With a green light from Washington, such a strike could set off a region-wide war. On the other hand, Trump’s close ties with Israel and Sunni Arab states yielded the Abraham Accords, indicating he might seek further Arab-Israeli normalization deals and contain Iran via an Arab-Israeli-U.S. coalition. Outside of Iran, other Middle East conflicts could be influenced by Trump’s policies: for instance, in Syria, Trump showed he was willing to pull out U.S. troops regardless of conditions, which could lead to an ISIS resurgence or more Russian-Iranian entrenchment if he did so again. In Yemen, Trump supported Saudi Arabia’s intervention (vetoing bills to end U.S. support), so a second term might mean less pressure to resolve that war. Overall, the Middle East under Trump 2.0 could see sharper confrontation with Iran and alignment with Israel/Gulf states – a recipe that might deter some adversaries but also risks direct conflagration if Iran feels cornered.
• The Korean Peninsula: While not explicitly mentioned in every forecast, North Korea remains a wild card. Trump’s personal diplomacy with Kim Jong Un in his first term did reduce nuclear test activity for a time, but North Korea has since improved its missile arsenal. If Kim greets a Trump re-election with a provocative ICBM or nuclear test (to get attention or leverage), Trump would face a test. He might return to summit diplomacy – or, if feeling betrayed by Kim’s lack of progress, he could revert to aggressive rhetoric. The risk here is miscalculation: under Trump, communications were unconventional and heavily leader-centric. Without careful lower-level negotiations, the situation could oscillate between bromance and crisis. A breakdown in talks could conceivably bring back the 2017 atmosphere of possible war. South Korea and Japan would be on edge if U.S. policy is erratic. There’s also the factor of U.S. troop presence – Trump in the past demanded allies pay more for hosting U.S. forces, including the ~28,000 troops in South Korea. If he were to withdraw or reduce U.S. forces in South Korea due to a cost-sharing dispute, it could weaken deterrence against the North, potentially tempting Kim to be even more belligerent. Thus, while Trump might try for a grand bargain with Kim (trading sanctions relief for some disarmament), the outcome is highly uncertain, and a failed negotiation could escalate tensions quickly on the peninsula.
• Other Potential Flashpoints: Beyond the headline issues, a Trump presidency could indirectly affect numerous regional conflicts. In Eastern Europe, aside from Ukraine, countries like Georgia or the Balkans might see instability if U.S. commitment to European security wanes. In South Asia, Trump’s policies (like his past overtures to mediate India-Pakistan issues or exit from Afghanistan) had impacts; a second term might see less U.S. involvement in Afghanistan’s post-withdrawal situation or Kashmir tensions. In Africa, less U.S. diplomatic engagement could affect conflict zones where U.S. involvement (counterterror operations, diplomacy in civil wars) has been significant. While Trump is less likely to directly involve the U.S. in new conflicts, the vacuum of U.S. leadership in conflict management might see regional powers or rivals step in, sometimes exacerbating violence. For example, reduced American attention in Libya or Syria could cede influence entirely to Russia or Turkey, potentially leading to more prolonged proxy wars. The common thread is that a Trump second term could reorder power dynamics at flashpoints worldwide – either cutting deals that freeze conflicts or retrenching U.S. involvement in ways that let conflicts fester or explode.

U.S. Foreign Policy Shift: Escalation or De-escalation of Tensions?

Would Trump’s return heighten the risk of war, or could it calm certain conflicts? The answer is complex, as Trump’s approach could escalate some tensions while de-escalating others. Key considerations include:

• Escalation Risks: There is broad concern that Trump 2.0 would remove or weaken the “guardrails” that have kept global tensions in check. Trump’s distrust of alliances and dislike of long-term commitments might erode deterrence that has prevented major wars. For instance, if adversaries doubt the U.S. will defend its allies (as Trump implied with NATO and possibly Taiwan) (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?) (Trump’s ambiguous stance on China raises the risk of accidental conflict in the Indo-Pacific | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank), they may be more tempted to resort to force. A Russian general or Chinese planner might calculate that U.S. intervention is not assured under Trump, emboldening moves that could spark conflict. Additionally, Trump’s impulsive decision-making – tactical unpredictability – can lead to escalation. An unplanned strike (like Soleimani’s killing) or a bellicose threat could trigger retaliation or crisis before cooler heads can intervene. Experts warn that “abandoning allies and tossing out security guarantees is bad for business” in terms of global stability (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). Without the credibility of U.S. commitments, miscalculations become more likely. Trump’s rhetoric also polarizes situations: his harsh verbal attacks (e.g., threatening North Korea with destruction, or taunting Iran) might corner those regimes into aggressive postures rather than dialogue. Moreover, a Trump-led U.S. pulling back from diplomatic engagement (for example, not supporting UN peacekeeping or mediation efforts) might let local disputes escalate unchecked. The net effect is a higher likelihood of conflicts breaking out or widening because the traditional role of the U.S. as a stabilizer or “world’s policeman” is diminished – by choice, under Trump. This power vacuum could be filled by regional powers settling scores (potentially through war) or by sheer instability as no one halts a brewing conflict.
• Opportunities for De-escalation: Paradoxically, Trump’s unorthodox style could also open avenues to reduce certain tensions. In his first term, Trump showed a willingness to talk directly with adversaries whom prior administrations had shunned. His summits with Kim Jong Un, though ultimately inconclusive, did lower immediate military tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Trump also engaged diplomatically with Russia (if mostly at the leadership level) and floated the idea of involving Putin in discussions about arms control or other issues. Some argue that Trump’s deal-making mindset might achieve compromises others couldn’t. For instance, Trump might broker a ceasefire in Ukraine by leveraging personal persuasion on Zelenskyy and Putin – a scenario critics liken to forced concessions, but supporters might call “peace through negotiation”. Trump’s emphasis on avoiding nation-building and long wars suggests he is reluctant to entangle the U.S. in new conflicts, which could mean a lower chance of direct U.S. military intervention (no new Iraq/Afghanistan-style invasions). In areas like the Middle East, Trump’s transactional approach produced the Abraham Accords, hinting he could pursue additional peace deals or at least pragmatic truces (e.g. among Gulf states and Israel). His focus on counterterrorism was heavy-handed but did see the defeat of ISIS’s territorial “caliphate” during his term and the elimination of ISIS leader al-Baghdadi. A second term might continue strikes on terror groups while avoiding larger wars. Some analysts credit Trump’s unpredictability with keeping adversaries cautious – the so-called “madman theory,” where being a bit volatile forces opponents to refrain from provocation. For example, North Korea paused testing for a while, possibly unsure how Trump might react. Iran, despite tension, also seemed to calibrate its responses (e.g., Iran’s retaliation for Soleimani’s killing was limited, possibly to avoid further U.S. action). In a sense, Trump’s willingness to meet with anyone (Taliban included, as he explored) and to cut losses (as with negotiating a quick exit from Afghanistan) could de-escalate long-running conflicts, albeit sometimes by simply walking away from them rather than resolving underlying issues.
• The Unpredictability Factor: The most defining feature of Trump’s foreign policy is its unpredictability – a double-edged sword for global stability. On one hand, unpredictability can deter actions (if opponents fear an irrational or overwhelming response). On the other hand, it can also cause accidental escalation, as neither allies nor adversaries can reliably anticipate U.S. behavior. Under Trump, even senior U.S. officials were often unsure of his next move, making crisis management difficult. Allies may overreact or take matters into their own hands if they doubt U.S. support. For example, if South Korea or Japan aren’t sure of U.S. protection, they might build up their militaries rapidly (possibly even consider nuclear options), which could alarm China or North Korea and raise tensions. Similarly, countries directly threatened by adversaries (like the Baltics with Russia, or Taiwan with China) might feel compelled to take a more confrontational stance or strike a separate deal, either of which could upset the status quo peace. Trump’s inconsistency – e.g., praising a rival leader one day and sanctioning them the next – can lead to mixed signals that heighten the chance of a misstep. Beijing, for instance, might misread a lack of U.S. response in one instance as carte blanche, only to find Trump reacting forcefully later, leading to conflict neither side initially wanted. Stability often relies on clear red lines and steady diplomacy; Trump’s style erodes that predictability. This means any de-escalatory successes (like one-off deals) under Trump could be fragile, while the escalatory incidents could flare up suddenly. In summary, Trump’s foreign policy shift would likely de-escalate U.S. involvement in some conflicts (pulling back troops, pushing allies to handle their own region’s issues) but escalate the overall risk of conflicts emerging or worsening due to weakened alliances and uncertain U.S. responses.

Expert Opinions and Historical Comparisons

Foreign policy experts and former officials have extensively debated the ramifications of a Trump second term. A consensus in many Western policy circles is that it could be a turning point – possibly a dangerous one – for the international order.

• Allies’ Anxiety and Alliance Erosion: Many experts highlight NATO’s fate as a bellwether. Steven Pifer, a former U.S. diplomat, bluntly wrote that NATO would “most likely not [survive]” a second Trump administration intact (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). The concern is not only a formal U.S. withdrawal but a U.S. president who undercuts NATO unity from within. John Bolton, Trump’s own ex-National Security Advisor, has warned that Trump “has no philosophy. He has no grand strategy” for alliances and would likely follow through on threats to diminish NATO if reelected (Why John Bolton Is Certain Trump Really Wants to Blow Up NATO) (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). Fiona Hill, who advised Trump on Russia, said a Trump win in 2024 could cause an “extraordinary rupture” in NATO, forcing Europeans to contemplate defending themselves without U.S. help (Trump re-election could cause 'extraordinary rupture' in NATO | CNN). Such a rupture would be unprecedented since NATO’s founding in 1949 and could remove one of the chief deterrents to great-power war in Europe. Many in Europe are already making contingency plans; as one European diplomat quipped, “We have to start thinking about life after Uncle Sam’s security blanket.” Historically, this draws parallels to periods when collective security failed – for instance, the late 1930s when the U.S. stayed out of European tensions and European alliances were too weak to deter aggression. The lesson of history that allies recall: when democratic nations don’t stick together, aggressors are more likely to strike (as with Nazi Germany’s calculation that the U.S. and others would stay out).
• Authoritarians and a New Order: Analysts also note that Trump’s return could embolden authoritarian leaders worldwide. Trump’s apparent sympathy or at least tolerance for figures like Putin, Xi, Erdoğan, and others might encourage them to test limits. The Putin-Xi partnership in particular could grow stronger if they perceive the U.S. retrenching. Some experts, however, argue that this partnership isn’t easily broken or strengthened by U.S. presidency changes – it’s driven by mutual interests of Russia and China that transcend Trump. Still, if U.S. global leadership wanes, countries that have chafed under U.S.-led norms may push harder: China in reshaping trade rules and regional influence, Russia in Europe and Middle East, regional powers like Iran or North Korea in their domains. Heather Hurlburt of Chatham House writes that Trump’s actions portend a permanent shift away from the 1990s-era internationalist order (Can the international order survive Trump 2.0? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank). The question she and others pose: what parts of the post-Cold War order can be saved, and by whom, if the U.S. largely exits that role? We may see a more multipolar world where power, rather than rules, dictates outcomes – reminiscent of 19th-century great power politics or the interwar period. Trump’s America First doctrine rejects the idea of the U.S. as “world policeman” or as a guarantor of last resort for global stability. Proponents of this shift say it could force other nations to step up and prevent the U.S. from being drawn into conflicts needlessly. Detractors fear it simply creates a vacuum of leadership that bad actors will exploit.
• Geopolitical Risk Assessments: Geopolitical risk firms and strategists often listed a potential Trump 2024 victory as a major global risk. For example, Eurasia Group (a political risk consultancy) warned that a Trump second term could lead to “global chaos” due to undermined alliances and unpredictable U.S. policies. They argue markets and foreign capitals alike would react to a less stable, less predictable international environment. Military analysts compare it to removing a pillar from a structure: the pillar being consistent U.S. engagement. Remove it, and you must hope the structure can rebalance without collapsing into conflict. Some military historians draw a comparison to the U.S.’s retreat after World War I – when the U.S. didn’t join the League of Nations and generally stayed aloof, arguably contributing to unchecked aggression by Axis powers later. While history never repeats exactly, the rhyme is concerning: a retreat of a superpower can precede a global realignment that often isn’t peaceful.
• Alternate Views: It’s worth noting not all experts foresee doom. There is a minority view that Trump’s unconventional tactics could yield a cold peace. For instance, if Trump strikes a grand bargain with Russia and China – however unlikely that might seem – it could establish spheres of influence that avoid direct superpower clashes. Some compare Trump’s approach to the 19th-century Congress of Vienna style, where great powers negotiate directly and divvy up influence (though that analogy has troubling implications for the rights of small nations). Others note that Trump, for all his bluster, did not initiate new wars and even spoke against the Iraq War in hindsight. They posit that his business-oriented mindset prefers deals over battles, suggesting major wars might be avoided. Still, even these analysts admit that Trump’s lack of interest in details and disdain for expert advice mean any peace would be fragile. As Stephen Walt concluded in a January 2021 report card, Trump left the U.S. “weaker, sicker, and more divided,” with adversaries “more dangerous than they were in 2016” and allies alienated (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card). A continuation of that trajectory could accelerate negative trends, with global impact. In short, the majority of foreign policy experts anticipate turbulent times under Trump 2.0, with a high premium on crisis management and a real risk of the international system experiencing a serious shock – whether that be a collapsed alliance, a rogue war, or nuclear proliferation.

Conclusion

A second Trump presidency would likely be a watershed moment for global stability. Trump’s first term tore at many of the assumptions underlying world politics – that the U.S. will always back its allies, uphold international norms, and prefer multilateral solutions. In term two, those tears could widen into a rupture: alliances like NATO might weaken or fragment, emerging conflicts could burn hotter as U.S. influence recedes, and rival powers might take bolder action in pursuit of regional dominance. Such shifts raise the odds of miscalculation or opportunistic aggression, and thus the risk of a large-scale war cannot be dismissed. On the other hand, Trump’s iconoclastic diplomacy could yield short-term deals that pause conflicts, and his reluctance to entangle U.S. forces abroad might spare America from certain wars. The overall picture painted by history and expert analysis, however, is cautionary. The post-1945 international order, imperfect as it is, has correlated with an era (the past 75+ years) largely free of direct great-power war. A dramatic U.S. policy realignment away from that order – as Trump advocates – would test whether peace can hold in a more fragmented world. Policymakers worldwide are already contemplating contingency plans: Europe fortifying its own defense, Asian allies hedging their bets, and adversaries sizing up how to advance their aims under a less predictable America. In summary, a second Trump presidency promises significant turbulence on the world stage. It could bring novel opportunities to resolve conflicts through bold diplomacy, but it also carries a substantial risk of escalating tensions – even to the point of a major war – if the delicate balances that keep the peace are upset. The true impact would depend on how Trump wields U.S. power this time and how other global actors respond to the changing American role (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card) (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?). The stakes, as the world has learned, could not be higher.

Sources: Trump foreign policy analysis (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card) (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card); NATO and alliance dynamics (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?) (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?); U.S.-Russia and U.S.-China policy shifts (Trump’s Plan for NATO Is Emerging - POLITICO) (Trump’s ambiguous stance on China raises the risk of accidental conflict in the Indo-Pacific | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank); Middle East and other flashpoints (Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card) (Trump’s reckless Middle East policy has brought the US to the brink of war); expert assessments on Trump 2.0 risks (Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?) (Can the international order survive Trump 2.0? | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank).