How Theories of International Relations Explain U.S. Foreign Policy Under Trump 2.0.

The foreign policy moves of Donald Trump’s administration (from relations with China to initiatives involving Greenland) have been widely debated in the media. Yet it is equally important to analyze U.S. foreign policy through the lens of different schools of international relations (IR) theory. What are these theories, and how can they help make sense of decisions by the current U.S. president that at times appear unpredictable, as well as the broader transformations underway in global politics?

IR theory offers several analytical frameworks for explaining state behavior on the world stage. The field encompasses a wide range of approaches, including liberalism and neoliberalism, realism and neorealism, the English School, constructivism, Marxism, critical theory, etc. This article focuses on two key perspectives – neorealism and neoliberalism – and how they shed light on U.S. foreign policy under Trump.

---

Neorealism

Neorealism starts from the premise that the state is the principal actor in international relations. Each state has its own national interests, which it seeks to defend. In the neorealist framework, actors are rational decision-makers who weigh potential gains against expected costs, acting when anticipated benefits outweigh risks.

A core concept in neorealism is that of “relative gains.” States evaluate their prosperity not in absolute terms but in comparison to others. If a potential competitor stands to benefit more from an agreement, a state may choose to forgo participation, even if it stands to gain in absolute terms.

Neorealism also views the international system as anarchic, meaning there is no central authority at the global level. In such an environment, states ultimately must rely on their own capabilities, as they cannot count on guaranteed external assistance.

Realist thought traditionally assumes that human nature is largely self-interested; individuals seek power and prioritize their own interests, and these traits are reflected in state behavior. Trust among international actors is therefore limited. In a condition of anarchy, states balance and counterbalance one another, remaining in a constant state of competition that increases the likelihood of conflict over time. Flexible, situational partnerships, based on the principle “the competitor of my competitor is my partner”, are a natural outgrowth of this logic.

A Neorealist Interpretation of U.S. Foreign Policy

From a neorealist perspective, contemporary U.S. foreign policy is driven primarily by interstate competition and the logic of international anarchy. Washington sees the global arena as a space of rivalry, where the key objective is preserving a favorable balance of power. Within this framework, the protection of national interests, encapsulated in the “America First” concept, takes precedence, even if it leads to friction with certain allies.

Neorealists may interpret the administration’s skepticism toward multilateral agreements and international institutions as rational calculation. If such arrangements are deemed insufficiently advantageous (or if they allow other states to secure greater relative gains) then withdrawing from or renegotiating them becomes a defensible choice. Trump’s rhetoric regarding NATO burden-sharing (“If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them”) fits squarely within this logic.

Heightened sanctions pressure, an emphasis on bilateral deals over multilateral frameworks, and a demonstrated willingness to employ hard power all align with a neorealist strategy of deterrence and power balancing.

---

Neoliberalism

The liberal tradition in international relations theory posits that the ultimate purpose of the state is to protect individual rights – life, liberty, and property. A just political system prioritizes the well-being of its citizens. Within this framework, a central question arises: how can states ensure their security without undermining the rights and freedoms of their own populations?

Liberals point to institutional mechanisms as the answer: civilian control over the military, competitive and transparent elections that allow for the peaceful removal of unpopular officials, and the separation of powers across branches and levels of government.

A key component of liberal thought is the “democratic peace theory,” which holds that democratic states are highly unlikely to engage in armed conflict with one another. This is largely attributed to the institutional constraints embedded within democratic systems.

Neoliberalism, in particular, emphasizes the role of international organizations in encouraging cooperation. Like realists, neoliberals assume that international actors are rational. However, they focus on “absolute gains” – the idea that all states can benefit from cooperation, even if the distribution of benefits is unequal. As long as each participant achieves a net positive outcome, cooperation remains viable.

In this view, international institutions, especially economic ones, serve as a kind of third party. They help coordinate state behavior and provide mechanisms, including sanctions, to enforce compliance with international commitments.

A Neoliberal Interpretation of U.S. Foreign Policy

From a neoliberal standpoint, U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump reflects a gradual weakening of the network of international institutions and partnerships that Washington has built over decades. Neoliberals argue that cooperation through institutions not only generated economic and political benefits for the United States but also fostered a more predictable international environment with fewer conflicts.

Neoliberal criticism focuses on the administration’s skepticism toward multilateral agreements and collective decision-making mechanisms. The withdrawal of the United States from more than 60 international organizations is often cited as evidence of this shift. In the neoliberal view, unilateral withdrawals or renegotiations erode allied trust and diminish the effectiveness of international regimes.

As partners begin to question the reliability of U.S. commitments, long-term coordination becomes more difficult and costly. While short-term flexibility may appear advantageous, neoliberals argue that weakening institutional frameworks ultimately increases uncertainty and raises the long-term costs of maintaining global stability.

---

Theory as a Tool for Understanding

The contrast between neorealism and neoliberalism does not merely reflect academic debate; it offers two distinct lenses for interpreting U.S. foreign policy. What appears erratic from one perspective may seem strategically consistent from another. Ultimately, international relations theory does not provide a single “correct” explanation. Rather, it equips policymakers, analysts, and observers with tools to better understand both the logic behind specific decisions and the broader shifts shaping today’s world order.

In future articles, we will examine U.S. foreign policy through the prism of other schools of international relations theory, notably the English School and constructivism, broadening the analytical framework and deepening the discussion. by Nikita Seniushkin B.A. in American Studies