President Trump’s foreign policy and its implications for Central Asia

Former President Donald Trump won the 2024 U.S. Presidential elections and made a spectacular comeback. Being sworn in at his inauguration on January 20, 2025, the President-elect returns to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to officially commence his second term as the President of the United States of America. Following his electoral victory, a wide range of analyses and op-eds have circulated in media outlets and foreign policy magazines, discussing what his foreign policy might entail in the years ahead. Some experts argue that his recent speeches indicate a resurgence of his “America First” foreign policy, which refers to America’s international stance without regard for geopolitical rivals. In essence, this foreign policy establishment is based on working with other nations to advance American interests. Conversely, others believe that his second term will be characterized by “…pursuing abundance at home and [selective] engagement abroad” due to current geopolitical turbulence in a fractured world.    

A thorough answer to the question of the foreign policy agenda for his second term hinges on his cabinet appointments, especially the foreign policy team, as well as his handling of the Blob. These two factors would be helpful in revealing the implications of Trump’s foreign policy trajectory for various regions around the globe.

What is the Blob?

An American political commentator and former Deputy National Security Advisor, Benjamin Rhodes, is often credited with coining the term ‘Blob.’ Basically, the Blob refers to a collective of foreign policy elites, including bureaucrats, diplomats, experts, journalists, and scholars, who can shape or influence the formulation of U.S. foreign policy. The central tenet of the Blob stems from the belief that America is an indispensable nation, essential for maintaining international stability through active involvement in global affairs.

In his first term, President Trump posed a significant challenge to the foreign policy establishment. He sought to implement significant changes to the prevailing foreign policy consensus, such as questioning the value of NATO or reducing the U.S. involvement overseas. However, his experienced foreign policy officials in key positions often pushed back against his approaches, resulting in frequent disagreements and high staff turnover. One of the examples was the situation in Afghanistan and Syria. Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria was met with bitter disagreements and criticisms, leading to internal policy divisions. Two high-profile figures resigned due to their differing views. Similarly, his national security advisor, John Bolton, had conflicting priorities and policies regarding Afghanistan, Iran, and Venezuela that ultimately lead to his resignation. Overall, the disagreements on foreign policy between Donald Trump and the Blob were numerous. As a result, his first term policy agenda was not fully materialized, leading to Trump’s loss over the Blob.   

The Importance of the President’s Cabinet

The more a president’s cabinet shares similar views and priorities with the president, the more smoothly and effectively foreign policy decisions are made, leaving little (no) room for internal conflict and policy divisions. Consequently, the future trajectory of his second term foreign policy depends significantly on his cabinet, particularly the National Security Advisor (NSA) and the Secretary of State. Surely, foreign affairs would be the major occupation of President Trump. Thus, he mainly relies on the NSA who plays a crucial role in shaping the president’s perspectives. In simple terms, the NSA can be viewed as an arm of the U.S. President. The responsibilities of providing important pieces of advice on national security matters and actively participating in the president’s decision-making process are other reasons that the NSA is a key figure in shaping the administration’s policies and strategies on foreign relations. Therefore, consistency and alignment between a president and his team are essential for establishing effective foreign policy. Yet, the influence of personality traits should not be overlooked.

Michael Waltz, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth have been named by the President-elect to the positions of National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense, respectively. These individuals largely share similar views on U.S. foreign policy with Donald Trump, although some differences do exist. All three are highly critical of China, perceiving it as an existential threat to America. For instance, Waltz claimed to intensify U.S. efforts to prepare for potential conflict in the Pacific region. According to Hegseth, China’s military modernization and expansion of its armed forces are aimed at undermining the United States. While Rubio criticized Trump’s isolationist foreign policy during his first term, he shared the same views on American trade imbalances with China and its economic influence. Additionally, they are all strong supporters of Israel.

Having a similar vision for the world and America’s role in it, the Trump Administration 2.0, unlike in previous instances, would experience greater consistency and reduced internal resistance in its foreign policy.

The Main Foreign Policy Issues and the Blob

In the years ahead, the Trump administration will deal with three immediate and long-term foreign policy issues in global affairs: China, the Middle East instability, and the Ukraine War. It is important to note that these issues are presented in order of their significance.

Prior to the Trump era, previous presidents pursued a policy of engagement with China by stressing human rights and political freedoms in their relations. When Trump took office, he consigned the dominating foreign policy establishment to oblivion. In this regard, the Trump National Security Strategy classified China –and Russia– as revisionist powers that threaten American security and interests. This approach is tantamount to an absolute rejection of the previous administration’s approach to China, adopting a more confrontational stance. In the coming years, President Trump is expected to resume his policies against China and tries to contain it both militarily and economically to prevent it from dominating Asia. Furthermore, the U.S. is likely to deter China in every region of Asia, including Central Asia, to limit its ability to exert substantial influence. Thus, China will be the top national security challenge for the U.S. during Trump’s second term. Potential areas of focus will include trade, technology, security, and Taiwan. Additionally, based on his recent statements regarding Taiwan, it remains unclear what U.S. military spending on Taiwan would look like. Namely, he has accused Taiwan of ‘taking’ American chip business and has threatened Taiwanese semiconductor companies with tariffs due to alleged technology theft from American firms. The competition in technology, particularly in semiconductors and artificial intelligence, is expected to intensify between these two great powers in the coming years, with both sides adopting certain offensive strategies. Critical technologies are essential for both the economy and military, as they create wealth and enable the development of advanced military weapons. For instance, the disparity between the size of the Chinese economy and that of the rest of Asia is enormous, making the mainland the dominant economic force. Some analysts argue that China would eventually translate this economic might into military might to challenge U.S. presence in its hemisphere.

With respect to the Middle East and the war in Gaza, the president-elect stated that he wants the war to be ended till he takes the office. Even before this, he made a similar statement during a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July 2024. This statement was interpreted by an Israeli newspaper as a call to defeat Hamas. In addition, he was described as the “best friend Israel has ever had in the White House” according to Israeli Prime Minister. Indeed, in his first term, the U.S. committed to defending Israel’s interests in the region, including acknowledging Israel’s governance of the occupied Golan Heights and supporting the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain. So, the main challenge would be whether Trump would advocate for a two-state solution or propose an alternative plan. In either scenario, the U.S. is likely to continue its support for Israel to a greater extent, allowing Israel to maintain control over the occupied territories in the West Bank.

Last but not least, with the Ukraine war, Donald Trump often boasted that he had good relations with President Putin of Russia, and that he [Putin] respected America at that time. In addition, on the day one in office, stated Trump, to end the war in Ukraine but never elaborated on how he intended to achieve this. In one of his interviews, when asked the same question, he stated that that ‘he knows what to tell Ukraine and Russia’ to put an end to this protracted conflict. Moscow, at the same time, is ‘waiting’ for a peace proposal from the President-elect. If Trump’s plan aims to accommodate territorial conquests of Russia, it would be anathema to Ukraine and American allies in the West.

Importantly the Blob has pivoted to East Asia to counter the rise of China in the region. However, it maintains that America can be active in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia at the same time. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the Trump administration would follow the suit. With his hard stance on China, the U.S. would entirely pivot to the East Asia to deal with its peer competitor.

Conclusion: What it means for Central Asia?

The key difference between Donald Trump’s first term and his upcoming second term can be explained with geopolitical insecurity and turbulence in the international system, coupled with the fact that Donald Trump made important conclusions from his first term. The Trump administration’s designation of China as a revisionist power and peer competitor would affect those countries that have close trade and economic relations, such as Central Asian countries, for the following reasons. The Belt and Road Initiative has become an exceptionally effective mechanism for regional development, contributing to economic growth and infrastructure development in Central Asia. Namely, China is the largest trading partner in the region; Beijing is the largest investor of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, the main investor for Turkmenistan, and ranks among the top five international investors of Kazakhstan. To these economic relations, Beijing is gradually incorporating a security element which can be seen from joint military exercises and increased arm sales to Central Asia. In this fierce competition between the U.S. and China, Central Asian countries should continue their multi-vector diplomacy, however, it should be carried out very carefully.

In the following years, it would be advisable for Central Asian countries to engage in reality-based diplomacy that is derived from addressing a very simple question: What is the national interest of each country in the region? This question might draw a big picture of three general categories of issues that should be taken into account when forming foreign policy.

• Starting with issues related with economy (diversification, fiscal policies), e-government, and urban development, these matters should be addressed independently in a way that is consistent with the local values and political preferences.
• The second category consists of issues associated with environmental protection, digital transformation, water resource management, and regional security (also this would require the participation of external actors). Embracing regionalism would reduce transactional costs by facilitating smoother interactions across the region.
• The final category of issues requires an active involvement of external major powers such as the U.S., the EU, Russia, and China, at least one of them. The financial and political might of these actors would be unprecedented in the areas of investment, climate change, and trade. Therefore, Central Asian countries may seek to explore new export opportunities and diversify their trade partners.

The following could be the main foreign policy areas of the Trump administration 2.0 in engaging with Central Asia: trade and investment, education, and security. Active involvement in Central Asia through educational initiatives would provide a favorable advantage for the U.S. to enjoy its soft power. The BRI does not limit itself to only infrastructure projects but also includes close cooperation between local governments, universities, and think tanks. For instance, China offers to establish modern and high-tech laboratories in Central Asian universities, not to mention the increasing number of Confucian institutes that promote Chinese language and culture. To counterbalance this, the U.S. embassies and American Councils should increase the number of its programs and collaborative projects with higher education institutions in the region.

In the security domain, it is highly unlikely that the U.S. take an indifferent stance on growing Chinese military activity in the form of training and cooperation with Central Asian countries. As for the situation in Afghanistan, Russia and China may assist the region in addressing potential instability. However, Beijing is reluctant to allow the region to become entirely dependent on Moscow, as this would enhance Russia’s influence. Consequently, the U.S. is likely to continue its efforts to deter these actors from completely dominating the region.

The main area of engagement may focus on trade and investment. There is a positive link between foreign direct investment and economic growth in Central Asian economies, which exhibits an important role in investment flows. The U.S. could play a crucial role in the region by enhancing trade corridors and improving transport infrastructure through geoeconomic engagement and diplomatic initiatives. In their letter to Donald Trump following his victory in the U.S. presidential election, Presidents Mirziyoyev of Uzbekistan and Tokayev of Kazakhstan expressed their willingness to collaborate with the U.S. in the areas of investment, trade, transportation, and security. A pragmatic policy of Washington should aim to provide what Beijing or Moscow cannot offer to the region, whether in trade or investment.

Written by: Sardor Allayarov