Is Trump's Foreign Policy Actually Realist? The Complex Truth

When Donald Trump returned to the White House, foreign policy analysts began parsing his approach through the lens of classical realism—the international relations theory that prioritizes power, national interest, and strategic restraint. But two years into his second term, the picture has become far more nuanced than simple categorization allows.

Trump's foreign policy does embrace certain realist principles, particularly its explicit acknowledgment of spheres of influence and its transactional approach to international relationships. Yet significant elements diverge from the prudent restraint that defines classical realist thinking, creating a hybrid approach that defies easy classification.

The Realist Elements: Power and Pragmatism

The administration's clearest alignment with realist principles appears in its frank acceptance of great power competition. Unlike previous administrations that often couched geopolitical maneuvering in idealistic language, Trump's team explicitly acknowledges that China, Russia, and the United States operate within distinct spheres of influence.

This pragmatic approach extends to economic relationships. The administration has pursued what officials call "transactional diplomacy"—evaluating partnerships based on concrete benefits rather than shared values or historical alliances. Trade deals with authoritarian regimes, arms sales to strategic partners regardless of human rights records, and the explicit linking of military aid to economic concessions all reflect classical realist thinking.

The emphasis on burden-sharing with allies also aligns with realist cost-benefit analysis. European NATO members now contribute an average of 2.8% of GDP to defense spending, up from 1.4% in 2016, largely due to sustained American pressure.

Where Classical Realism Breaks Down

However, several aspects of Trump's foreign policy diverge significantly from realist orthodoxy. Classical realism emphasizes restraint and the careful calculation of costs versus benefits. The administration's approach to military intervention, while less frequent than some predecessors, has been marked by sudden escalations that surprise even close allies.

The withdrawal from multilateral agreements—from climate accords to trade partnerships—often appears driven more by domestic political considerations than strategic calculation. Classical realists typically view international institutions as useful tools for managing power competition, even when they constrain American freedom of action.

Perhaps most significantly, the administration's communication style frequently undermines the predictability that realists value. Public threats, Twitter diplomacy, and sudden policy reversals create uncertainty that can destabilize the very balance of power that realist theory seeks to maintain.

The Domestic Politics Factor

What complicates any realist analysis of Trump's foreign policy is its deep entanglement with domestic political calculations. Classical realism assumes that foreign policy decisions flow from objective assessments of national interest. But many Trump administration moves appear designed primarily to satisfy domestic constituencies rather than advance strategic goals.

The emphasis on bringing manufacturing jobs back to America, for instance, sometimes conflicts with broader geopolitical objectives. Tariffs on strategic partners can undermine alliance relationships that serve crucial security functions. The result is a foreign policy that may appear realist in its rhetoric but operates according to different logic.

Global Reactions and Adaptations

International partners have adapted to this hybrid approach in revealing ways. European allies have begun developing independent defense capabilities while maintaining formal alliance structures. Asian partners have diversified their security relationships rather than relying solely on American guarantees.

Even adversaries have adjusted their strategies. China's Belt and Road Initiative has evolved to emphasize economic rather than military expansion, partly in response to American unpredictability. Russia has focused on regional influence operations rather than direct confrontation, recognizing the risks of escalation with an administration that combines realist power politics with less predictable decision-making.