Trump 2.0 – geopolitical reboot or national reroute?

The world is experiencing significant shifts, and the recent US election stands as one of the most influential. This could introduce a new level of unpredictability to global politics, economic relations and social dynamics worldwide.

Donald Trump’s decisive victory has surprised many, and his re-election raises several important questions about how it will impact on global dynamics. A continued focus on "America First" could strain international alliances and fragment global cooperation, if US interests overshadow multilateral agreements.

As Trump prepares to take office for the second time, he may also adopt a more assertive approach to foreign policy, likely impacting NATO relations and potentially intensifying tensions with China, Iran and Russia. His previous scepticism about the climate crisis may see reduced federal action which will hinder global climate agreements and slow carbon reduction efforts.

In this episode guests analyse what to expect from Trump's return to the White House, both for the US and the world, including potential shifts across foreign, security, development, climate and migration policies.

Guests

• Sara Pantuliano (host), Chief Executive, ODI Global
• Karin Von Hippel, Director-General, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)
• Ramsey Day, ODI Global Washington Board member and former USAID Assistant Administrator for Africa 
• Jeremy Konyndyk, President, Refugees International

Related resources

• Managing anti-immigration populism (Insight, ODI Global)
  
  
• Public narratives and attitudes towards refugees and other migrants: US country profile (Briefing paper, ODI Global)
  
  
• Four cost-effective ways the U.S. can pay its “fair share” of climate finance (Insight, ODI Global)
  
  
• Institutional misogyny is a threat to reproductive justice everywhere (Insight, ODI Global)
  
  
• Global approaches to refugee response: what difference can they make? (Insight, ODI Global)
  
  
• American journeys (Feature, ODI Global)

Transcript

0:00:09 - Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive, ODI Global 

Welcome to Think Change. I'm Sara Pantuliano. The world is experiencing significant shifts and the recent US election certainly stands as one of the most influential. Although we expected a close contest, Donald Trump's decisive victory has surprised many. Trump's re-election raises several important questions about the impact on global dynamics. His “America First” approach is popular among Americans concerned with issues like immigration, trade and job security, but it reflects deep societal divides. A continued focus on “America First” could strain international alliances. It could fragment global cooperation if US interests overshadow multilateral agreements. So as Trump enters office as a more seasoned leader, we may expect that he will also adopt a more assertive approach to foreign policy, likely impacting NATO relations and potentially intensifying tensions with other global powers. Domestically, a lot has been made of the fact that Trump's priorities could shift federal resources away from development aid. That will affect countries in Africa. In Latin America, they rely on US support for infrastructure, for health and economic growth. And of course, we all know about his scepticism on climate change. We may see reduced federal action, which may hinder global climate agreements and slow carbon reduction efforts. So overall, a second Trump term could introduce a new level of unpredictability to global politics and economic relations. 

We've invited a group of senior colleagues to help analyse what we may expect from President Trump's second mandate in terms of foreign policy and development issues in particular. So we've invited a group of senior colleagues to help analyse what we may expect from President Trump's second mandate, particularly in terms of foreign policy and development issues. Joining me today I have Karin von Hippel, the Director-General of RUSI, Ramsey Day, Member of our ODI Global Washington Board and former USAID Assistant Administrator for Africa, and Jeremy Konyndyk, President of Refugees International.  

Karin, let me start with you. Could you give us an overall analysis of how you see US foreign and security policy shifting with the second Trump administration and, particularly, what stance do you anticipate the administration may take on key conflicts like Gaza and Ukraine?  

0:02:38 - Karin von Hippel, Director-General of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) 

Sure Well, thank you for inviting me, Sara. It's nice to be here and it's great to be here with Ramsey and Jeremy tonight. Look, I'm personally very concerned about geopolitics, international security. I am worried about the chaos and unpredictability and really the contradictions that we are going to see going forward. And you know, we know, we've seen it before, so it won't be new. But I think this time it might be more difficult to manage because I think this time Donald Trump will bring in people who understand the bureaucracy better and understand how to manage a bureaucracy.  

There could be some silver linings, of course it's possible, even on Ukraine. Nobody wants this conflict to continue. The question will be how much Ukrainian territory will they try to sacrifice? Now, of course, it's up to the Ukrainians at the end of the day. I know that some countries, NATO and other American allies are very concerned, South Korea, Japan and others that America may not have their back if something happens. So a smaller NATO country Russia invades a smaller country, would America come to their rescue? I'm not sure Trump would. I know some countries are thinking should we get our own nuclear weapons? That may be the only way we can protect ourselves and ensure our security going forward. So I am concerned about that. I'd love to be wrong, but at the moment I'm worried. I'll leave it at that. 

0:04:20 - Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive, ODI Global 

And any comments around Gaza.  

0:04:22 - Karin von Hippel, Director-General of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) 

I mean there's a lot of so yeah, I mean, I think one of the things people forget is, of course yes, it was a huge achievement the Trump administration's Abraham Accords, but at the same time, those marginalized the Palestinian people, and so, yes, so I think it's concerning that Netanyahu is so pleased about a Trump victory. I think he may think OK, now I am licensed to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Of course they'd have to do that with American assistance. I don't think they can, they can do it on their own without American assistance. It would be great if he could end the fighting in the region. It would be great if we could, if he could, push for a two-state solution. I think that's what many people want, but it's not entirely clear to me that that will happen.  

0:05:09 - Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive, ODI Global 

Thanks. Ramsey, you've been a USAID senior official under the first Trump administration. What do you think the main implications of the election outcome will be for US development policy? I mean, there's been so much talk around Project 2025 and potential shift in aid priorities. How do you think this US support for global development may change with a second Trump administration?  

0:05:33 - Ramsey Day, ODI Global Washington Board Member and Head of Strategy and Business Development at Lumenix USA 

Yeah, thanks, Sara, and great to be with you, Karen and Jeremy. You know, I think that certainly the first Trump administration, I think will be a good harbinger for how the president is going to approach development aid in the second Trump administration.  

I don't think he has changed in many respects from that perspective. I think that will manifest itself in, I think, in a lot of positive ways, quite frankly, a lot of positive ways, quite frankly. Number one I think we will see more of an emphasis on economic cooperation and private sector engagement, which I think is not unique to President Trump. I think private sector engagement has been good development policy for increasingly over the last 20 plus years or so, but I think there'll be greater emphasis on that. I think there'll be a redoubling down on engaging the private sector with certainly an alignment with US national strategic and security interests, as opposed to simply pursuing development priorities based on a moral obligation. I think we'll see a bit more of a transactional approach, meaning treaty and I'll use Africa as an example and wanting to pursue trade opportunities, commercial opportunities, as opposed to using development dollars to catalyse private sector engagement.   

0:07:03 - Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive, ODI Global 

One thing that many people are saying is that probably where we will see the strongest continuity with the current administration is around so-called localization I'm not a fan of the word, but really supporting local response. How do you see that?  

0:07:18 - Ramsey Day, ODI Global Washington Board Member and Head of Strategy and Business Development at Lumenix USA 

Absolutely. A lot of administrations in recent years have had a localization strategy. I may have called it different things the Obama administration in many ways it was USAID forward, and the first Trump administration was the journey to self-reliance under Mark Green's leadership. But the emphasis, I think, is quite consistent and is that aid dollars can most effectively be used if they are closest to those in which they are attempting to assist. How that is approached, I think there may be some level of differences in how it's approached. You may see more local organizations, faith-based organizations. You might see less emphasis on engaging multilateral institutions and really focusing on more local organizations.   

There's always the challenge of local capacity, and so I think making investments into capacity building at the local level so that they can actually manage US government dollars is always a challenge. It's always a balancing act. We don't want to put those organisations at risk if they're not prepared to manage the very robust reporting requirements of the US government, which is always a challenge. But I think there will certainly be a continued emphasis on new partnerships, particularly in the private sector. So how are we going to engage AI tech firms, both in the developing world and in the US, when they haven't really ever pursued US government contracting in the past, and so some of those procurement regulations I think need to be modernized so that we can actually engage technology firms to really leverage the transformative power of the digital transformation that I think we'll see in developing countries and that will be absolutely critical to our national security and strategic interests. Because if we don't again, if we don't shape some of those ecosystems and some of those regulatory landscapes, then others will yeah, it's interesting you talk about procurement regulations. 

0:09:30 - Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive, ODI Global 

I think that has been part of why different administrations for 20 years have been trying to really promote this lens on supporting local organizations more directly, but very little progress has been made. It'd be interesting to see if anything changes there. Let me go to Jeremy. Jeremy, you are the president of Refugees International and your organisation is dedicated to creating a more welcoming world for people who are seeking refuge. Of course, that was something that stood out in President Trump's first term. The Trump administration implemented a series of really restrictive immigration policies. Everybody will remember the family separation policy under the zero tolerance approach on the US Mexico border. What do you expect from a second Trump administration in terms of humanitarian refugee support?  

0:10:21 - Jeremy Konyndyk, President of Refugees International 

I'll break that down into a few things. I agree with something Karin said earlier, that there will be fewer people around President Trump to restrain some of the more extreme policies that he tried to pursue in the first administration. There will not be those same guardrails this time. I think Ramsey's point around you know, looking to some of the lessons from the first Trump administration to get some sense of where they will go on these policy areas is right, but what I think you also need to do is also going to recognize that some of the restraining factors that existed during the first administration will not be there both in Congress and within the administration. So when I look at the outlook on humanitarian and refugee issues, you start with the budget. The first Trump administration came in and in their first budget sought to cut foreign aid dramatically, sought to cut humanitarian aid roughly in half, sought to cut food aid by more than half, and they didn't succeed in that. And they didn't succeed in that mostly because of Congress, because there were Republicans in Congress who pushed back on that. I don't think you're going to see that again this time. 

On the immigration front and the refugee and asylum front, they've made very clear what they intend to do, which is to implement a programme of mass deportation. I mean, people held up signs at rallies about mass deportation programmes in the United States. I think you have to take them at their word on that. I would like to believe that that was an exaggeration or not an actual plan, but again, I think we have to take them at their word on that and along with that, I would expect that things like the use of humanitarian parole to enable people from places like Ukraine, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, who are facing extraordinarily difficult and dangerous situations at home, to come legally to the United States to seek protection, they made very clear they're going to end that. They will end the use of CBP1, the app that's being used to apply for asylum at the US border legally at the US border. They made very clear they intend to end the use of that, and that, I think, in turn, is going to hugely disrupt migration cooperation with Mexico, and that has some really uncertain consequences Right now. 

Kind of the biggest driver of the decrease in the number of border crossings at the US border over the course of this year and they have dropped dramatically the biggest factor in that has been Mexican enforcement, not anything that the US has done. Um, that Mexican enforcement is, in turn, premised on cooperation around the CBP one app as the tool for managing the flow of who has access to the US border. So if that goes away, it really throws the whole. Uh, I was in Mexico earlier this year talking with Mexican um government counterparts about this. That really throws the whole apparatus of migration cooperation with Mexico into chaos. So, um, yeah, I think it's going to be extremely disruptive and it's, of course, what we care about at Refugees International. We want to make sure people who need protection can access protection, and I think it's going to ensure that even fewer people than currently are able to access the protection of asylum in the United States. 

0:13:47 - Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive, ODI Global 

Yeah, I mean there's so many important points. I mean, of course a number of us are concerned about is precisely the ability, the inability, going forward of people who seek protection not to be able to obtain that and, of course, the moral argument that is there, but also, if you want, the legal normative framework that gets challenged. But there's also a domestic dimension to this because of course we've heard that during the first administration. So many industries rely on migrants. You know the labour markets actually need immigration. We see that also in Europe. I mean, there is so much of our economies in Europe that rely on immigrant workforce, rely on immigrant workforce. So what impact do you foresee in these potential shifts in migration patterns that can actually really have unintended consequences on the labour market? 

0:14:37 - Jeremy Konyndyk, President of Refugees International 

Yeah well, the US economy depends heavily on irregular migration. No one really wants to admit that in our political system or own that, but it's a reality. A state like Texas it's the same in Europe. It's the same in Europe. Nobody wants to admit that in our political system or own that, but it's a reality. 

This is the same in every rich country. We have the same basic dynamics about this. Where you know, our economy is really heavily reliant on irregular migration and the lower wages that that entails for certain types of workers. There are huge industries across the United States right now that cannot hire Americans at the wages they pay. It's very ironic to me in a country that has been obsessed with inflation for the last few years, and understandably so, because that is a toxic thing politically. Well, if all the migrant workers go away, and particularly if all the irregular migration goes away and you're trying to attract Americans to those jobs, what do you need to do? You're going to have to ramp up the salaries dramatically. What's that going to do? Inflate prices. So if the price of eggs is too high right now, wait till you see what happens when you need to entice American workers to take those agricultural jobs. 

0:15:55 - Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive, ODI Global 

We've had exactly the same here after Brexit, but we clearly don't learn from each other, Karen. The other things that get discussed a lot, of course, is the climate stance. We've heard that over and over again during the campaign, also the speech that President-elect Trump gave the other day. So what impact do you foresee with the second administration on US climate policy, particularly in the context of international security, which is what you focus on? I mean, how can this reshape US alliances and cooperation on global climate initiatives? 

0:16:32 - Karin von Hippel, Director-General of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) 

I'll answer that question, but I'd like to comment very quickly on a point that both Ramsey and Jeremy made. I think I totally agree with Ramsey's point about the private sector. I think I mean and you know, Sara, from your work that a huge challenge we've had in so many developing countries is we're not there to help grow their economies. We bring far too many sort of do-goody type projects as opposed to jobs, and that's really what people want everywhere. So I think that would be fabulous If the Trump administration does it. I'm not entirely sure they will, but I think that's the right approach. And then I agree with Jeremy. I'm not I'm not a refugee expert, but I find I mean these challenges, as Sarah knows as well, are the same throughout Europe and they're the same in so many countries. 

And what I find so challenging about it is that we don't have a mature debate about migration. We don't just sit down and we say, you know, say this is our labour, labour, these are our labour demands is what we need, and let's figure it out. It's so political. So the right wing will say we have too many brown and black people coming, and the left wing will say, oh, we have to work on long-term development and then people won't want to leave. Well, we've been doing that for a long time and that hasn't worked either, and so you know, it's encouraging to hear the way you talk about it, because we do need a more sophisticated debate in the United Kingdom, in Italy, in England, in the United Kingdom I mean everywhere we just don't have that, and so I don't know how we get there. But I'm glad you're in the job that you're in. 

But just on climate change, I mean another. It's another example of, I think, what we'll see in terms of Trump's contradictory policies that I mentioned earlier. So, you know, Elon Musk is going to help us make I don't know the government more effective. Well, Elon Musk is also, you know, the wealthiest man in the world, but he's an enormous investor, as we all know, in electric vehicles, and Trump is very interested in, you know, drilling and all of that, again right Going back to investing in fossil fuels and doesn't seem to think climate change is happening. So that's just another example.

His new best friend sits on a different end of that spectrum, just like on Ukraine. He talks about withdrawing and he's going to talk to Putin, as I mentioned, I think tomorrow on the phone and yet if he appoints Mike Pompeo as the next Secretary of Defense. Mike Pompeo has spent the last few years traveling the world talking about Ukrainian security and pushing quite hard on that. So you know, these are just two examples, and I suspect we will be in all these camps. We're going to be all over the place over the coming years and I think that is why some people think, oh, it's great, he's inconsistent, because you never know what to expect. Personally, I think consistency, international security and development really matters, because you need to know what to expect and other countries need to know what to do and how to respond, instead of thinking, how do we flatter this man so we can get what we want, which is unfortunately, what a lot of people do. 

0:19:31 - Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive, ODI Global 

Yes, I mean I think there is a lot of speculation at the moment because, as you say, we've seen different sides come to the fore in the previous administration and a lot will depend on the people that get appointed to the cabinet in the end to try and shape some of these policies. As we've seen, in some areas things not changed very much from previous administrations and others having serious departures, particularly around development and foreign policy issues, actually have had an impact. And, Ramsey, you were mentioning before, obviously what some of these policies and approaches, how they will play out in some areas where the priority will be around, you know, security and around strategic presence, including the, if you will, the relations and the tension with China. This, obviously a lot of this, will play out in Africa. We know that. 

You know the first term of President Trump sparked a trade war with China. So how do you think the new administration will approach the US-China competition and, particularly, what impact do you think it will have in terms of the economic relations with African countries? I mean, what changes do you anticipate when it comes to US investment, diplomatic engagement across the continent and, of course, development assistance? 

0:20:53 - Ramsey Day, ODI Global Washington Board Member and Head of Strategy and Business Development at Lumenix USA 

Yeah, this one, Sara, this one will be a fascinating one to watch, because the landscape, particularly in Africa when it comes to China, has changed even since the first Trump administration, and so I think there will need to be some adjustments that are made. Some of them may be nuanced, some of them may be less nuanced, but at the same time, I think there are some fundamentals that are there. Number one I think Africans and Americans share many of the same values to have a good, solid economic relationship with the US. Historically, that relationship has really been focused on social programming, and there's nothing wrong with that. We've had tremendous success in HIV and AIDS via the PEPFAR program to save millions of lives. PMI also saved millions of lives, all the work that Jeffrey has done in foreign disaster assistance, of course, so I think there's tremendous trust and shared values between the US and our African friends, and I use Africa as an example just because I think the Chinese engagement is a perfect kind of microcosm for US-China relations in the developing world, relations in the developing world. 

That said, though, I still kind of go back to my previous comments and that African nations want to do business with the United States and they want to have a deeper and broader economic relationship. They want greater integration into the international economic system. Many of the African nations, I think, have learned that those relationships with China get very complex, particularly when we talk about using sovereign assets as collateral for loans. I think we've seen significant decrease in African loans. 

I think the African private sector is going to really kind of take the lead when it comes to engaging these deals in Africa. But the US has really not shown up in an economic sense on the African continent, and that's where I think we should be doubling down. We should be tripling down on that transitioning fundamentally transitioning that relationship from an aid-based relationship to one that's really rooted in economic cooperation. But I do believe that we will continue to see, I think, significant and increasingly emphasizing private sector engagement as a way of countering and really taking advantage of the opportunities that are presented on the African continent.  

0:23:32 - Sara Pantuliano, Chief Executive, ODI Global 

Thanks, we're almost out of time, but there is a lot of concern out there around what a second administration will bring to multilateral cooperation in general, how it will impact on a new world order, because of a more sort of individualistic approach, if you want, when it comes to the position of the US under the first Trump administration and what we've heard through the campaign. So I just want to end with some reflection from all of you as to what do you see in the second administration, what impact it will have on multilateralism and, potentially, the so-called world order. Who wants to start? 

0:24:11 - Jeremy Konyndyk, President of Refugees International 

I can take a first swing at that. There was to me someone who was not in the government at the time, obviously, of the first Trump administration. I always found a certain irony in the fact that, on the one hand, a lot of the commentary from the administration justifying or defending proposed cuts in US foreign assistance was this idea that other countries should do more, other countries should do more around the sort of priorities that the US defines, and at the same time, this really kind of allergic approach to the multilateral system. The multilateral system is how the US gets other countries on board with its global agenda in part. I mean, you know, the politics that play out in the multilateral system are kind of setting an agenda beyond your own country, and when you can, you know when you can, and that's certainly what I found when I was in government myself. You know when you can instil a priority in the multilateral system, you're not only instilling it for yourself. You are, by definition, by virtue of working within and through that system, you are making it a priority for other countries around the world. So if the US wants to get other countries to pitch in on a funding priority, you do that by, in part, enshrining that in the multilateral order. 

So I think there was kind of a tension there between those two stated priorities. And I worry as well, kind of more broadly, about international humanitarian law, which has taken a beating already from the current administration. Frankly, in the different approach between Gaza and Ukraine in terms of what the US will call out, condemn and what the US will condone, and I think that will get even worse under Trump administration. I really fear that we are losing the fundamentals of international humanitarian law as a restraint on the behaviour of militaries, and that's not something that is due to the Trump administration. I think the Biden administration bears a lot of responsibility for that erosion, but I think it's going to accelerate. 

0:26:17 - Ramsey Day, ODI Global Washington Board Member and Head of Strategy and Business Development at Lumenix USA 

Well, sure, it's a very good question, I think. Well, certainly, my hope is that we will see greater peace and prosperity, and I think we all want that. I think we had a lot of peace and a lot of prosperity, I think, in the first Trump administration, and I think he wants to replicate that in many ways. I do believe that it is fair to say that there will certainly be an increase in prioritization of bilateral relationships as opposed to multilateral engagement. That's not to say that there won't be multilateral engagement at all, but I do believe that there are many, particularly in the senior levels, who feel as though multilateral institutions have not served US interests, and in many ways, the US is by and large not always, but by and large one of, if not the largest, contributor to many of these multilateral institutions, and they have not been acting in the interests of the US. And so I think there are many within the Trump orbit who believe that we can have very good, strong bilateral relationships and we can make great progress when it comes to those relationships if the multilateral institutions aren't going to deliver in their eyes. 

Now, that's not a blanket statement. There are a number of multilateral institutions that I think have been highly effective and the Trump administration worked very well and very closely with organizations like the World Food Program and many others. But there is going to be, I think, some accountability that historically has not been there. So there will be an attempt to hold some of the multilateral institutions accountable, but I don't think that there should be too much concern and too much angst over a second Trump administration. There are very smart, very dedicated, very committed people who may have a different approach, but we all have the same goals. 

0:28:18 - Karin von Hippel, Director-General of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) 

Sure, I mean, I'm less of an optimist about multilaterals and it's nothing to do with Trump or Biden or Obama. I mean, the US Security Council hasn't been able to do anything in a very long time. I worked on Syria when I was in the Obama administration. We couldn't even get a humanitarian resolution passed through the Security Council. So you know, the challenge is it's all of our faults because the UN is, you know, we're all members of the UN, we're all stakeholders and the UN was built for a different time and it's never been under enough pressure to reform itself.  

And the debates just go on and on. You want to strengthen yourself when people start talking about Security Council reform or whatever it might be. Now, as Ramsey and Jeremy were both saying, there are certainly UN institutions that do good work and their UN missions in certain parts of the world that have done good work. I have worked for the UN in several of those missions and it was some of the most inspiring work and I worked with incredible people that I've ever done in my life. So I'm not an anti-UN person. I'm just not an optimist.  

Thank you so much, Karin, Ramsey, and Jeremy. 

I think what I'm hearing from you overall is that a second Trump administration is going to be characterised by strong uncertainty across a range of issues, as his positions are not clear or could easily shift. You’ve mentioned the crisis in Ukraine as well as his energy policy amongst the issues where we’re not quite sure quite sure to what extent we're going to see a follow through on some of the pronouncements we heard during the campaign.  

And of course, there is strong concern around refugees and migrants, and we haven't even talked about sexual and reproductive health rights. What we've heard during the campaign obviously causes concern. 

At the same time, we can expect progress for something that I know the four of use care deeply about, that is more support to local organizations.  

When it comes to multilateralism, the concern is that President Trump’s continued "America First" approach means that the U.S. is set to remain focused on protecting national interests, at the expense of multilateral cooperation and global alliances. This will likely lead to a more transactional foreign policy, especially in regions like Africa, where we may see more emphasis on trade deals and private sector engagement.   

But this shift could also deepen global divides, weakening US influence in shaping collective action on pressing issues. 

The U.S. stance on Gaza, for example, could become a flashpoint for new tensions, given Trump’s past alignment with Israeli leadership, though others wonder whether he will be more robust with Prime Minister Netanyahu to make the war stop. What future that will harbour for Palestinians, though? 

In the coming years, the choices made in Washington will likely have profound consequences on global security, trade, human rights and beyond. What’s certain is that we’re entering a new era in geopolitics, one that promises to keep us on our toes. 

We’ll be closely monitoring these developments, both within the U.S. and around the world, and will be exploring their global impacts in future episodes.  

Thank you for joining us on Think Change - be sure to subscribe to our podcast to stay connected as we follow these critical issues together.