The re-emergence of Donald Trump onto the political centre stage marks the crystallization of what can now be termed the Trump Doctrine—a combative, deal-centric worldview that seeks to remake both America's domestic institutions and its global role through a scorched-earth approach. Whether one sees it as a necessary correction or a dangerous overreach, the doctrine is unmistakably marked by hyper-concentration of executive power, ideological cleansing on the home front, and an economic-first foreign policy that appears increasingly unmoored from strategic consistency.
The Domestic Front
At home, the Trump Doctrine begins with the wholesale dismantling of what is derided as the "left-wing stranglehold" over academia, media, and federal institutions. This ideological purge has found tangible expression in Trump’s confrontations with elite academic institutions such as Harvard and Columbia, where lawsuits, political scrutiny, and defunding threats have become a norm. Executive power under Trump is being consolidated in ways without precedent in modern U.S. history. The separation of powers has become increasingly performative, as Trump’s executive orders often push legal and constitutional boundaries, only to be challenged in court by civil liberties groups and opposition lawmakers. Many call this governance, domination by directive
Art of the Deal?
Internationally, the Trump Doctrine is animated by what he touts as his signature trait: the art of the deal. Trump believes that economic leverage, wielded without ideological constraints, can resolve even the thorniest of global issues. But while transactional diplomacy may yield short-term tactical gains, it often falls short as a tool for long-term conflict resolution.
Nowhere is this limitation more evident than in Trump’s handling of major global flashpoints. The Israel-Gaza war drags on with no meaningful U.S.-led breakthrough. In Ukraine, the war has entered a dangerous, attritional phase — with a ceasefire perpetually on the horizon but never realized. And in Iran, nuclear negotiations have hit a wall, with Tehran rejecting Washington's baseline demand for zero uranium enrichment.
The illusion that trade-offs and financial incentives can substitute for strategic engagement is rapidly unravelling. Diplomacy requires trust, context, and a shared vision — none of which can be manufactured at the negotiating table alone.
===========================
China: Confrontation or Compromise
The Trump administration’s policy on China has also undergone a dramatic shift. During his first term, Trump brought China to the centre of US foreign policy by launching a full-scale trade war and framing Beijing as the primary strategic competitor. Expectations were high that a second Trump administration would continue to counterbalance China's rise, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. Instead, Trump now appears willing to strike a Faustian bargain with Beijing — seeking economic gain at the cost of strategic coherence. Any potential trade agreement with China may secure immediate fiscal benefits, but it risks undermining America’s broader geopolitical posture. The consequences are profound. U.S. leverage in the Indo-Pacific, its ability to deter Chinese aggression in the Taiwan Strait, and the assurance it provides to non-NATO allies in the region—all could erode in the face of a transactional approach. Economic short-termism cannot sustain long-term security architecture.
The India Dilemma
The Trump Doctrine’s overemphasis on trade as a lever of coercion has exposed serious cracks in the U.S.-India strategic relationship. For an administration laser-focused on reshoring manufacturing and reducing external dependencies, making exceptions —even for trusted partners like India — is proving difficult.
Recent India–U.S. trade negotiations have been fraught, largely because Trump views trade not as a platform for partnership but as a battlefield. His past intervention during an India-Pakistan conflict, where he falsely claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire by threatening to cancel trade with both, was not only diplomatically offensive but strategically tone-deaf.
India publicly refuted the claim, signalling its discomfort with Trump’s heavy-handed tactics. Most recently, Trump’s pressure on Apple CEO Tim Cook to relocate iPhone production from India back to the U.S., under threat of a 25% tariff, starkly illustrates the inherent conflict in his economic doctrine. While aimed at boosting domestic manufacturing, such actions risk alienating key strategic partners and pushing them to hedge their bets.
India’s diversification efforts—including an advanced trade deal with the U.K. and ongoing negotiations with the EU—are early signs of a recalibration. If Washington turns coercive, New Delhi will naturally seek to strengthen alternative supply chains and deepen relationships elsewhere.
A Wrecking Ball Without an Endgame
The Trump Doctrine, thus far, resembles a wrecking ball swinging through established norms—domestically and internationally—without a clear geopolitical endgame. It is ideologically driven at home, economically obsessed abroad, and increasingly unpredictable in both spheres.
States that are economically integrated into global supply chains, especially those with cautious strategic alignments like India, are unlikely to capitulate quietly. Instead, they will adapt, diversify, and insulate themselves from the whims of a Washington bent on transactional supremacy. If the Trump administration continues down this path, it risks not only weakening U.S. alliances but also ceding long-term influence to more stable and consistent actors on the world stage.
The Trump Doctrine represents a stark departure from traditional U.S. policymaking. It is characterized by an aggressive concentration of power at home and a transactional worldview abroad. While it may yield headline-making deals and momentary wins, its long-term consequences are likely to include fractured alliances, alienated partners, and a diminished global leadership role for the United States. As the world watches this unfolding doctrine, many nations—India included—are sharpening their strategic hedging skills which could very well become not just a choice, but a necessity.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of ETV Bharat)
