The MAGA Mirage

Donald Trump’s second term has married trade brinkmanship with foreign-policy missteps, leaving America smaller in influence and standing.

When Donald Trump won a second term in the White House, there was hope he might trade the turbulence that accompanied his first term for something resembling stability. Instead, the first year of his return has delivered a new round of upheaval.

Trump came into office pledging to end two of the world’s most intractable conflicts: the war between Russia and Ukraine, and the bloody cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians. In both theatres, he promised decisive diplomacy. In neither has he delivered. Ukraine’s battlefields still burn; Gaza remains under siege. His negotiations have yielded no breakthroughs.

Rather than focus solely on these diplomatic challenges, Trump commenced on an aggressive ‘tariff war’ against both rivals and trading partners. This economic offensive has quickly become as complex and intractable as the wars he vowed to end. Joe Biden, his predecessor, had given unstinting support to Ukraine and Israel, shovelling billions of dollars in aid and weaponry their way. Trump has maintained that military backing, but layered over it an unpredictable trade policy that has rattled allies and foes alike.

The ‘Make America Great Again’ slogan has become entwined with punitive tariffs on imports, justified as a way to protect American industry. Yet the effects have rippled far beyond American shores. Supply chains have frayed. Global inflation has been nudged higher. Poorer countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, already struggling with fragile economies, have found themselves hit hardest by rising prices for basic goods. America’s withdrawal of funds from health, education and social-welfare projects abroad has compounded the pain.

At home, the tariff strategy has delivered more pain than gain. Inflation has crept upward, hitting working-class households. Small and medium-sized firms, reliant on imported components, have struggled to cope with higher costs. He has also tightened the purse strings on research and higher education, long the bedrock of America’s economic and technological leadership. Economists warn that if such policies persist, Trump’s MAGA mantra could morph into ‘Make America Small Again.’

But Trump’s tariff crusade suffers from more than just economic flaws. Gone are the days when Washington poured resources into poverty reduction, agricultural development and global health. America has slashed its contributions to the UN’s cultural, health and humanitarian agencies. To many in the developing world, this is a signal that the superpower has little interest in their welfare.

The administration insists the tariffs serve America’s interests. But they have also provided a propaganda gift to America’s critics, who depict the United States as a self-absorbed bully. The founding fathers, notably George Washington, once saw modest tariffs (around 10 percent) as a reasonable tool of statecraft. Trump’s steeper levies risk weaponizing trade in ways that alienate allies and undercut America’s moral authority.

India has been among the most vocal critics. Foreign minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and foreign secretary Ranbir Jaiswal have publicly highlighted what they see as the dual standards of Trump’s trade policy. The American president has pressed India to curtail purchases of discounted Russian crude oil, warning of the moral cost of financing Moscow’s war. New Delhi has countered that the United States and the European Union continue to trade with Russia in other sectors (uranium, aerospace parts, chemicals and fertilisers) at volumes exceeding India’s own commerce.

India’s pushback underscores a deeper frustration among middle powers at Washington’s readiness to dictate terms while disregarding its own inconsistencies. Why, Indian officials ask, should their country’s energy policy be subject to American approval?

The critique extends to the wars themselves. Washington has spent liberally to arm Ukraine, prolonging its ability to resist Russia’s invasion. Critics argue that this support, while bolstering Kyiv’s defences, has entrenched the conflict and reduced incentives for either side to negotiate. A similar dynamic is visible in Israel, where American backing has been unwavering despite the rising civilian toll in Gaza. In both cases, Trump has failed to open credible channels for peace.

Trying to fight two wars and a tariff battle at once is a strategic overreach. Economic confrontation with trading partners distracts from the delicate diplomacy needed to end shooting wars. By alienating allies through tariffs, Trump risks narrowing the coalition that might help broker peace in Ukraine and the Middle East.

India’s diplomatic defiance is a case in point. New Delhi’s firm stance may embolden other countries to resist American pressure. For decades, America’s influence rested not just on military and economic might, but also on the perception that it championed a rules-based, democratic order. Tariff diktats, double standards and retreat from global development projects chip away at that image.

Trump still has time to alter course. Abandoning the tariff war would ease global economic strains and repair frayed alliances. But that would require a radical change in his mercurial temperament. It would mean less bluster, more listening; fewer ultimatums, more compromise.

For now, the trajectory is worrying. Tariffs, meant as a weapon to protect American jobs, risk damaging the economy, isolating the country and making it harder to tackle the very conflicts Trump promised to end. If the goal is to make America great again, history suggests greatness is achieved not by raising walls, whether of concrete or customs duties, but by building durable partnerships.

(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)