Perhaps the critics are right: the arrival of Team Trump 2.0 means apocalypse now. Or perhaps tough love is what the doctor ordered to get the system working again
Image Source: Getty
Perhaps the doom-sayers are right. Perhaps the return of Donald J. Trump to a second presidency spells the end to women’s rights, prosperity, and all things good. As if multiple crises and extreme uncertainties were not enough of a global challenge, the world’s largest economy and military superpower has just gone and re-elected a leader with a known penchant for unpredictability. Buy these arguments, and it should be clear that the American people have not only shot themselves in the foot but the rest of us, too. But have they?
The first part of this article presents three arguments explaining Trump’s electoral triumph should give many countries and people around the world good reason for at least cautious optimism. The second part examines three risks that the arrival of Trump and his new team may pose while highlighting why these potential challenges represent new opportunities for other actors.
As if multiple crises and extreme uncertainties were not enough of a global challenge, the world’s largest economy and military superpower has just gone and re-elected a leader with a known penchant for unpredictability.
Three areas where a paradoxical, positive effect of Trump’s re-election might be at work are trade, global governance, and diversity.
First, recall that there was no love lost between President Trump 1.0 and the World Trade Organization (WTO). In August 2018, he declared the WTO to be “the single worst trade deal ever made”. The actions of his team spoke even louder than these harsh words. Trade wars, tariffs, and paralysis of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism had marked the first Trump era. While the US did not return to its old role of guarantor of trade multilateralism under President Joe Biden either, Team Trump 2.0 will now likely break its own record (and certainly Biden’s or President Obama’s) in bringing stormy weather to global trade governance. Just prior to the election, candidate Trump described “tariff” as “the most beautiful word in the dictionary”; chances are that the self-declared “tariff-man” will be back with a vengeance when he takes up office again—his election promise has been that the US will be slapping on universal baseline tariffs (10 percent) and hitting China with tariffs of 60 percent.
Trade wars, tariffs, and paralysis of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism had marked the first Trump era.
Economists have been quick to predict the costs of such policies, internationally and domestically, especially as US trading partners will likely retaliate with counter-measures. There is also much concern about the fate of the multilateral trading system when faced with a renewed Trumpian onslaught. However, a shock to the system is perhaps exactly what is needed to shake the global elites of Geneva and Brussels out of their complacency. For far too long, the WTO has operated largely as a technocratic bubble and has thus been unable to deal with the weaponisation of interdependence and other fundamental challenges to global trade. While there is no guarantee that the WTO will not try to continue with business as usual (and thereby fade away into even greater redundancy), Trump 2.0 provides the organisation and its members with a major opportunity. Finally, there is a real chance to reboot the system, update the rules to secure global supply chains among like-minded partners, and make global trade governance fit for purpose again.
It is not only trade governance where the return of a Trump Presidency creates a turning point for a much-needed reboot. The ability of multilateralism to deliver peace and prosperity in the 20th century has led to the persistence of unquestioning trust in the system among many well-meaning liberals even today. This blind trust, however, is no longer apt at a time when the founding principles of the system are under challenge (e.g. interdependence, which was supposed to bind nations into a community of peace, can now be weaponised in unexpected ways). At an operational level, too, there are reasons to question the workings of some international organisations. We need to take a close, hard look at the composition of their secretariats, the distribution of their leadership positions across nations, and whether their supposedly neutral governance machinery is, in fact, being covertly (and sometimes overtly) hijacked for the pursuit of narrow, nationalist priorities of authoritarian states. Taking a cue from the already announced Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), global governance would be well-served to harness Trump’s (in)famous scepticism on multilateralism to engage in drastic reform (including funding cuts for organisations that show themselves to be easy, political instruments for some states). Unlikely alliances may thereby ensue, including those aiming to reform the UN Security Council.
Many (perhaps rightly) balk at the anti-immigration sentiments that Trump seems to stoke. Take a closer look, however. While minorities continued to favour Democrats, Trump was viewed more favourably by Asian Americans this time. There are several explanations for the increase in the percentage of certain minority groups in favour of Trump, but at least one plausible one relates to perceptions of “good” versus “bad” immigration. Successful, law-abiding immigrant communities may prefer the centre-right, in contrast to the “Wir schaffen das” politics of Angela Merkel (ironically herself a centre-right leader) that involved opening up borders with no immigration controls. Add to this the crucial factor of optics. The hardline on mass deportations notwithstanding, the Trump administration looks considerably more diverse (from Vivek Ramaswamy to Tulsi Gabbard and advisers in key positions from the Indian community) than many cabinets in Europe (e.g. in Germany). And think this through further: this is not just an issue of optics, but global power politics. The presence of a strong pro-India contingent in Team Trump may allow the US to draw clear red lines in dealing with Pakistan and China, more than was possible in previous US governments. And all this is not in the name of fuzzy values and global public goods but hardcore American interests.
The presence of a strong pro-India contingent in Team Trump may allow the US to draw clear red lines in dealing with Pakistan and China, more than was possible in previous US governments.
The previous section has suggested that there are good reasons for some optimism. Among causes for concern, three, however, are worth highlighting. First, there is a risk that amidst Trump’s transactionalism, values will get short shrift. And insofar as interests and values are reflexive, this downplaying of values will come back to bite US interests as well as those of other players that stand for global norms (such as democracy) in the medium run. Second, even prior to the election, there was growing alarm in Europe about the risks that a Trump win would pose to support for Ukraine. Third, what is to become of life as we know it if the WTO fails to update and global trade fragments? These issues are serious but can be addressed if other powers step up.
Regarding the first concern, on transactionalism versus values, there is no reason for other powers to follow the US lead. The EU, especially, can and should put its money where its mouth is, working with other like-minded partners. For instance, by developing synergies with the concept of Lifestyle for the Environment (LiFE) (advanced by PM Modi within the rubric of India’s G20 Presidency), the EU, India, and others can offer alternatives to both the Chinese model of development, but also the US one. Such alternatives will involve not only lip service to sustainability questions but also new narratives and policies that recognise the importance of biodiversity, trans-species justice, and the worth of saving individuals more-than-humans for their own sake. The reason to pursue such alternatives will be the good of the planet and also leadership and influence for countries offering such out-of-the-box thinking. Besides such “radical” ideas, there are also good strategic reasons to appeal to the values of democracy when seeking deeper relations with a civilisational power like India. President Joe Biden was able to draw on this link via his Summit for Democracy; it is even possible that the Trump administration—even only for transactional reasons—sees it useful to deepen its ties with India via this and other such ideational instruments.
By developing synergies with the concept of Lifestyle for the Environment (LiFE) (advanced by PM Modi within the rubric of India’s G20 Presidency), the EU, India, and others can offer alternatives to both the Chinese model of development, but also the US one.
Second, the Europeans and others are right to be concerned about cuts in US support for Ukraine and indeed, NATO. But such cuts have been a long time coming, and it is high time that Europe and other US allies learnt to fend better for themselves (aligning potentially with other friends via formations such as the Quad and giving them more oomph). And Trump’s pre-election promise to end the Russia-Ukraine war aligns with the pro-peace position that India and others from the Global South have taken. Some face-saving for the Russians will be positive in that it will reduce the temptation for Russia to be driven further into the arms of China. Much depends on what a mediated peace will actually translate into. For Europeans (and the Ukrainians themselves) concerned about a sell-out by Trump, India may turn out to be a key factor in securing a deal that is acceptable to both parties.
Third, especially in light of institutional inertia that affects many international organisations, there is a serious risk that the WTO will not be able to withstand the Trump challenge. Plan Bs and Cs will have to be in place. These will have to include not only conventional trade deals (which have been traditionally difficult to reach with some partners, such as India) but connectivity projects linking the EU, India, and other democracies. Ideas on these are in the offing in the Global South. Raisina Dialogue, which celebrates its 10th anniversary in 2025, is a good place to pay more attention to.[i]
Perhaps the critics are right: the arrival of Team Trump 2.0 means apocalypse now. Or perhaps the argument presented here is right: tough love is indeed what the doctor ordered to get the system working again.
Amrita Narlikar is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.
[i] Full disclosure: the author has been associated with ORF – the host organization of Raisina Dialogue – since 2020, and now works with this organization fulltime.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. Amrita Narlikar’s research expertise lies in the areas of international negotiation, World Trade Organization, multilateralism, and India’s foreign policy & strategic thought. Amrita is Distinguished ...
Read More +
PREV
