Trump Vol. 2 Will Impact Global Development

The United States is by far the world’s largest provider of foreign aid. Before the inauguration, there were strangely few signals about the U.S.’s foreign aid policies and priorities. Photo: J. Countess/Getty Images

Much attention has been given to Trump’s statements about the takeover of Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal. In an increasingly divided and conflict-ridden world, this creates uncertainty and concerns that international law and human rights will be deprioritized over the next four years.

Trump’s expansionist remarks contrast with the foreign policy he pursued during his first term, when the goal was to end costly wars and focus on making the U.S. “great again.”

However, the world has not become more peaceful in recent years. Kristian Berg Harpviken, the new director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, noted at the turn of the year that, with 59 active conflicts, we are in a dangerous phase in world history.

The pressing question for many is where a Trump-led U.S. will position itself and what priorities it will have, and how this will affect global peace and development.

Who Supports Trump in a Changing World Order?

In the context of security policy, China and Russia are often portrayed as potential threats to the West, particularly NATO.

Economically and in terms of foreign aid, China is on the offensive in Africa, Asia, and Latin America through investments in its Belt and Road Initiative.

Since 2010, emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) have expanded their cooperation, including bringing in countries like Iran and Egypt to create an alternative to a U.S.-led world order.

At the same time, countries like Turkey (a NATO member) and India are taking more independent roles, seeking cooperation that aligns with their own policies and interests.

This creates a less predictable world, where countries and regions face pressure and seek new alliances.

Central Asia is one such example, where former Soviet republics are distancing themselves from Russia, increasing trade with China, while also orienting toward Europe — a trend welcomed by the EU.

In the South Caucasus, another borderland, the pendulum has swung the other way. Georgia, which once leaned toward Europe and the U.S., has, since the 2024 election, formed a more pro-Russian government, prompting large protests.

When the influence of countries and alliances changes, developments can occur quickly and unexpectedly. This is most evident in Syria, where Assad’s regime collapsed after its backers, Russia and Iran, were weakened both economically and militarily.

Where the U.S. positions itself under the Trump II administration will be a key factor for global peace and development.

• Who will they support?
• What kinds of military, political, and economic tools will they use or refrain from using?
• Will they prioritize only neighboring areas?
• And will protectionism and taxation of trade become their primary tools?

A Less Skeptical World

While Europe is concerned about Trump’s statements, the perception is different outside the U.S.’s closest allies. The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) conducted a survey in 24 countries.

It shows that in countries that militarily and economically challenge the U.S., such as the BRICS nations, the population is positive about Trump’s presidency, both for their own countries and for global peace.

As many as 82% of respondents in India, 57% in Saudi Arabia, 52% in China, and 45% in Russia believe Trump is good for global peace. In contrast, 58% in the U.K., 50% in South Korea, and 40% in the EU think Trump is bad news.

This contrasts with the reality of a more conflict-filled world and escalated rhetoric about Taiwan, as well as Trump’s recent remarks about Greenland and Panama.

However, it may reflect a hope outside Europe that Trump will keep his promises to end the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and that the U.S. will be less involved in conflicts beyond its own region. This could also mean giving other nations freer rein in their neighborhoods, such as Israel.

Aid Freezes, Climate Inaction, and Tax Policies

Before the inauguration, there were strangely few signals about the U.S.’s foreign aid policies and priorities. There were also few indications of its stance toward the UN and support for UN organizations, except for skepticism toward the Paris Agreement and reproductive health. There was also concern that vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could have a negative influence.

The Trump administration was slow to contact USAID to facilitate the transition from the Biden administration, and no new USAID administrator had been appointed after Samantha Power.

Trump’s first executive orders went further than feared. Not only did he withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the OECD’s Global Tax Deal, but he also instituted a 90-day full freeze on all foreign assistance including for UN organizations.

Before U.S. aid could resume, an “assessment of programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy” had to be conducted. The rationale was that ongoing projects “…serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.”

It remains unclear whose ideas the Trump administration believes are destabilizing global peace or what measures will secure it. This creates uncertainty about what the world’s largest donor of foreign aid will prioritize and what kind of peace it aims to promote.

• Arne Strand is a Senior Researcher at Chr. Michelsen Institute, and part of the PRIO project Developmental Peace?
• This text was first published in Norwegian by Panorama.