By Mikey Pearce
The problem that persists for many political analysts and news consumers alike is to try to apply a consistent academic theory to US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy. Whether he actually has a strategy or not has been the question on everyone’s lips. It can be difficult to assume that he does given that he has potentially, once again, committed the fundamental error that a US commander-in-chief can make: sleepwalking into yet another forever war.
Did the hard-learnt lessons of Vietnam and Afghanistan fall on deaf ears? Were those dedicated men and women lost in vain? These questions look frighteningly fair to ask, given that hostilities resumed once again between the US and Iran in recent days after several pauses. For American allies, however, particularly those in Europe, one troubling aspect of the situation in the Middle East is that it becomes the latest in a series of attacks from Trump against them and their apparent fence-sitting - with their loyalty to American global hegemony and willingness to stand by America regardless of the mission at hand in great doubt by the President.
These scenarios we still find ourselves in coming into the latter half of 2026 are troubling, but maybe we can at least attempt to understand why this is all happening through a bit of a theoretical lens. Albeit gingerly.
So, lets give it a go - what’s going on with Trump?
A Trump Doctrine of Consolidation?
The good news is that there does seem to be a policy that the Trump Administration are attempting to pursue, and it is one that not only makes sense, but one that we have seen before. This policy is known as ‘consolidation’. Consolidation is a reinvention of a country’s foreign policy aims, which in the US case, is characterised as a shift away from the post-WW2 precedent of massive global overstretch of its resources. It is the preference for projecting power on fewer fronts worldwide, but with a stronger presence in each. This is contrary to its cousin, ‘retrenchment’, which is an actual, total reduction in overseas commitments - fewer fronts AND less presence in each.
Consolidation was the policy taken by Britain in the early 1900s who found itself in a similar position to the US - thinly stretched across all corners of the globe, but unable to respond effectively in any one theatre due to this setup. It quickly sorted out any lingering colonial disputes, created alliances in far-away territories to better enable management of British interests, and consolidated its assets around the rising German threat. The British Empire stood strong as a result, albeit re-shuffled and re-prioritised, and this is seen by analysts as a successful historical case study of consolidation.
We can take a look at the US’ 2026 National Defence Strategy to highlight strikingly similar thinking in Trump’s official doctrine. It gave us 2 clearly defined priorities: to defend the Western Hemisphere and to deter China in the Indo-Pacific. This is a noticeable break from previous strategies, where America was the global policeman and placed equal importance on Europe, the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East. That is most of the planet, all at once.
Whilst previously never fully leaving a region, Trump now wants to leave Europe and the Middle East entirely, leaving Europe in the hands of a rearmed NATO, and the Middle East in the hands of his long-pushed-for ‘Abraham Accords’ nations, who he sees as the UAE, Israel, Bahrain and hopefully for Trump, Saudi Arabia.
With this, Trump’s foreign policy already starts to look a tad clearer, at least in its goals. This is probably why he approaches NATO allies with aggressive demands to increase military spending - so that he can then pull America out of those regions and assign those military assets to higher priority regions. It is also likely the reason he seems to not hesitate in pursuing aggressively direct foreign policy, in that he is clearly pursuing an explicit strategic aim at whatever cost.
For example, Operation Absolute Resolve removed President Maduro from office in Venezuela in an operation that lasted just 48 minutes. Audacious. He said he would attack Iran, and then did. Audacious. Only a leader in pursuit of a defined outcome acts with such gusto. Even if it is misguided. It suggests a goal is at least there. And that’s been a huge question mark from many over Trump’s foreign policy.
The Problem…
There are some problems with this for Trump though. For consolidation to work successfully, you need some pre-requisites in place. Firstly, you need to match your rhetoric to your practice. Can we truly say that Trump is displaying successful consolidatory efforts whilst simultaneously escalating in Iran, and leaving Ukraine and Gaza unresolved? The clear answer is no.
Secondly, you need to embolden and give confidence to your allies that they are capable independently, but also have support from you where needed. And can we say that Trump has been improving the trust between Europe and the US in recent times? Anyone who says yes to that probably has a bridge over New York’s East River to sell you.
And finally, the key one, is that to successfully consolidate you need your adversaries to not start challenging your interests whilst you are consolidating, exploiting your unreadiness. But what have we seen from Russia recently? If intelligence reports are to be believed, it is that they are now looking to test NATO’s Article 5 - that an ‘attack on one, is an attack on all’. And China have now escalated to daily military drills across the Taiwan Strait to intimidate Taiwan into submission. So are the pre-conditions for consolidation in place? There’s a case to be made that they actually couldn’t be in a worse position for consolidation.
So, can Trump’s foreign policy be explained?
The answer, as it so often is in geopolitics, is not strictly yes or no. It does seem that there is a loose link to a particular foreign policy school of thought for Trump, but the execution is undoubtedly very poor and derails any meaningful progress, partly due to Trump’s personality factors and partly due to global factors. As aforementioned, there are conditions you must meet before beginning to consolidate, and these conditions are currently far less than optimal for a successful consolidatory pursuit.
It does seem that Trump may be aware of this to some extent though, given his approach to managing the world’s dictators; he is often accused of appeasing the Putins, Xi Jinpings and Kim Jong Uns of the world, but I don’t believe that Trump would be doing this unless he understood that the conditions for his vision of America are not currently met (or maybe he would!) He doesn’t really have a choice but to try and bring them on-side and deter them from challenging American interests at a time like this, or he will not be able to rescue America from its decline as I’m sure he feels destined to do, knowing him.
One alarming thing this does tell us though, is how far the perception of American power worldwide has fallen. The America of Reagan, Truman, or JFK wouldn’t ever need to beg and plead for the mercy of its adversaries.
And isn't that a damning indictment of where America is today.
Who Wrote this?..
