Each president enters office with the belief that they can make a significant impact on the world, yet Donald Trump appears to possess an even stronger sense of personal power compared to those who came before him.
However, the situation is proving to be quite challenging for the 47th president. Trump may exert pressure on tech giants to conform and leverage government authority to influence institutions such as Harvard University and the judiciary; however, confident global leaders prove to be more resilient against such intimidation.
Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to ignore and humiliate him, openly defying US efforts to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. Russian media is currently depicting Trump as a brash figure who consistently backs down and fails to enforce repercussions.
The president believed he could influence China by confronting leader Xi Jinping in a trade war. However, he misinterpreted the dynamics of Chinese politics. An authoritarian leader in Beijing faces an unyielding challenge: the inability to submit to a US president. US officials express frustration over China’s failure to uphold commitments aimed at de-escalating the trade conflict.
In a move reminiscent of his approach to China, Trump has retreated in his tariff conflict with the European Union. Financial Times commentator Robert Armstrong sparked outrage from the president by introducing the phrase TACO trade — “Trump Always Chickens Out.”
There was a widespread expectation that Trump would align closely with Benjamin Netanyahu. During his initial term, he provided the Israeli prime minister with nearly all of his requests. As Trump attempts to mediate peace in the Middle East, he encounters a significant challenge: the ongoing Gaza conflict is crucial for Netanyahu’s political survival, paralleling the situation in Ukraine for Putin. Trump’s pursuit of an Iranian nuclear deal is complicating Israeli efforts to exploit a perceived moment of strategic vulnerability within the Islamic Republic as they consider military action against its reactors.
Influential leaders actively seek their interpretations of national interest, operating within a distinct reality and diverging historical timelines, contrasting sharply with the more immediate and transactional goals typically associated with American presidents. The majority do not respond to personal appeals that offer no return on investment. Following Trump’s efforts to undermine Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa during their meetings in the Oval Office, the White House’s appeal appears to be diminishing.
During the previous year’s campaign, Trump dedicated months to touting his “perfect relationship” with leaders like Putin and Xi, suggesting that this rapport could effortlessly address complex geopolitical and economic issues among major global powers that may be inherently difficult to resolve.
He is not the first leader in the United States to experience such delusions. President George W. Bush notably gazed into the Kremlin leader’s eyes and claimed to have discerned his soul. President Barack Obama expressed apparent disdain for Russia, characterizing it as a declining regional power. He notably referred to Vladimir Putin as the “bored kid in the back of the classroom.” The situation took a turn for the worse when the discontented youth decided to annex Crimea.
In a broader context, presidents of the 21st century have consistently presented themselves as figures of destiny. Bush assumed office with a clear intention to refrain from taking on the role of the global policeman. The September 11 attacks in 2001 transformed him into precisely that figure. The initiation of conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq marked a significant chapter in US military history — victories were claimed, yet the subsequent peace was ultimately lost. His attempt to democratize the Arab world during his second term ultimately proved unsuccessful and did not gain traction.
In an effort to address the repercussions of the global war on terror, Obama journeyed to Egypt, where he conveyed to Muslim audiences the message that it was time for “a new beginning.” The initial phase of his presidency was characterized by a palpable belief that his charisma and distinctive background could serve as a remedy on the global stage.
Joe Biden embarked on a global tour, proclaiming that “America is back” following Donald Trump’s ousting from the White House. However, four years later, largely as a result of his own ill-fated choice to seek a second term, the America that embodied the internationalist ideals of the post-World War II era had vanished once more. Donald Trump made his return.
Trump’s “America First” populism is built on the assertion that the United States has been taken advantage of for decades, despite the fact that its alliances and influence on global capitalism have established it as the most powerful nation in history. The current scenario depicts a figure assuming the role of a strongman, demanding obedience from all. In doing so, he is recklessly depleting a significant legacy and undermining the United States soft power, which is fundamentally the ability to persuade through his aggressive actions.
Tariff threats have marked the initial four months of the Trump administration, indications of potential US territorial expansion in Canada and Greenland, and significant cuts to global humanitarian aid programs. These developments underscore the reality that international stakeholders also have a voice in global affairs. Leaders in China, Russia, Israel, Europe, and Canada have assessed that Donald Trump may not wield the influence he believes he possesses. They appear to recognize that there are no repercussions for opposing him or that their domestic political landscapes necessitate a stance of resistance.
