One Year of Trump II: Tariffs, Weak Dollar, NATO Pressure and UN Cuts Reshape America’s Global Strategy With Bold Gains and Rising Risks 13-02-2026
One Year of Trump II: Power Politics at Home and Abroad
One year into Trump II, the defining feature of the administration is the use of economic and geopolitical leverage as a central governing strategy. Tariffs, alliance pressure, multilateral funding reviews, and warnings to geopolitical rivals have shaped both domestic debate and global perception.
The White House frames this approach as restoring reciprocity, sovereignty, and deterrence. Critics argue it increases volatility, strains alliances, and fuels internal divisions. The reality lies somewhere in between: measurable gains in negotiation leverage, paired with visible costs in stability and cohesion.
This analysis examines the first year of Trump II across trade policy, currency dynamics, NATO relations, the United Nations, BRICS tensions, and domestic political sentiment.
Tariffs and Reciprocity: Trade as Strategic Leverage
The Core Strategy
Under Trump II, tariffs have returned to the center of U.S. economic diplomacy. The administration’s approach is built on the principle of reciprocal trade, meaning market access must be balanced and advantageous to American industry.
Recent White House fact sheets highlight bilateral trade agreements framed explicitly as historic reciprocal deals, particularly with major partners in Asia. Simultaneously, Congressional Research Service reports document a timeline of tariff authorities and executive trade measures deployed throughout 2025.
The method is direct: apply pressure, negotiate concessions, secure commitments.
Positive Outcomes
Supporters argue that tariffs create immediate bargaining power. Countries seeking access to the U.S. market are incentivized to lower barriers, commit to industrial investments, or adjust supply chains.
This approach reinforces an America First industrial narrative focused on:
-
Manufacturing reshoring
-
Semiconductor security
-
Energy independence
-
Reduced strategic dependency
For parts of the industrial base, especially sectors competing with subsidized imports, this posture provides political and economic reassurance.
Structural Risks
However, repeated tariff cycles carry costs. Economic analysts note that broad tariff regimes can raise import costs for U.S. companies, particularly those reliant on intermediate goods. That can squeeze profit margins and feed price volatility.
There is also the risk of retaliatory measures. Trading partners can respond symmetrically, accelerating supply chain fragmentation and regional trade blocs.
In short, tariff power delivers leverage but invites counter-leverage.
The Weak Dollar: Strategic Tool or Warning Signal?
Over the past year, the dollar’s relative weakness has become a focal point in economic discussions. Market analysts link the trend partly to tariff uncertainty and evolving fiscal expectations.
Advantages of a Weaker Dollar
A weaker dollar improves export competitiveness. U.S. goods become cheaper abroad, supporting manufacturing and agriculture.
Combined with tariff policies, currency weakness can contribute to narrowing trade deficits and strengthening certain export-driven sectors.
For advocates of industrial revival, this alignment is not accidental but complementary.
Vulnerabilities
Yet dollar depreciation has side effects. Imports become more expensive, potentially pushing up consumer prices and raising production costs for companies dependent on foreign inputs.
A weakening currency can also be interpreted as market concern regarding long-term fiscal sustainability or policy unpredictability.
Thus, the weak dollar reflects both opportunity and fragility within Trump II’s economic framework.
NATO: Commitment Paired With Maximum Pressure
Trump II has maintained formal commitment to NATO obligations while increasing pressure on European allies to expand defense capabilities.
At recent alliance meetings, U.S. officials emphasized readiness, deterrence, and spending benchmarks, reiterating expectations that allies meet ambitious GDP-based defense targets agreed at prior summits.
Strategic Benefits
From Washington’s perspective, pressuring allies accelerates modernization and burden-sharing. European defense investments have risen in recent years, partly in response to geopolitical instability and American demands.
The administration’s argument is clear: security must be measurable in capability, not rhetorical solidarity.
Alliance Friction
However, diplomatic tone matters. Critics argue that persistent pressure risks weakening trust within the alliance, particularly at a time when unity is critical in managing Russian aggression and broader global competition.
The NATO strategy reflects Trump II’s broader philosophy: commitments remain, but conditions are renegotiated in real time.
The United Nations: Transactional Multilateralism
Another defining feature of Trump II has been a review of funding commitments to international organizations, including selected UN bodies.
A presidential order in 2025 initiated reassessments of U.S. contributions, with some funding reduced or redirected. Research institutions have documented the financial implications for UN agencies and operational planning.
Supporters’ View
Advocates argue that funding reviews promote accountability, efficiency, and alignment with core U.S. interests. They contend that multilateral institutions should demonstrate measurable effectiveness.
This aligns with the administration’s transactional approach: contributions must generate visible returns.
Critics’ Concerns
Opponents warn that funding cuts weaken global coordination capacity in areas such as humanitarian response, peacekeeping, and development.
Reduced engagement can also diminish U.S. influence within institutions that continue to shape global norms.
The UN strategy underscores a broader recalibration of America’s role in multilateral governance.
BRICS and Geopolitical Signaling
Trump II has also linked trade tools to geopolitical containment. Public warnings about potential tariffs against countries aligning with BRICS initiatives signal a willingness to use economic pressure as deterrence.
Strategic Logic
The administration aims to discourage alternative financial or political alignments that might dilute U.S. influence.
By raising the economic cost of alignment with rival blocs, Washington seeks to reinforce its centrality in global systems.
Possible Backfire
Yet such measures may accelerate efforts among BRICS nations to diversify trade mechanisms, explore alternative currencies, or deepen regional cooperation.
Economic deterrence can reinforce polarization if overused.
Domestic Mood: Selective Support, Emerging Tensions
Domestically, Trump II enjoys strong support among core voters on sovereignty and trade assertiveness. However, polling data reveal pockets of vulnerability.
A notable example is public reaction to certain foreign policy initiatives, where bipartisan skepticism has surfaced. Surveys show that some controversial proposals have failed to resonate broadly, even among Republican voters.
Inflation and price stability remain sensitive political variables. While headline inflation trends have moderated compared to prior peaks, volatility linked to tariffs and currency shifts continues to influence public perception.
The administration’s strength lies in clarity of purpose. Its vulnerability lies in economic sensitivity.
A Presidency of Leverage and Trade-Offs
After one year, Trump II can be characterized as a presidency built on leverage.
Tariffs reshape negotiations. A weaker dollar influences trade flows. NATO pressure recalibrates alliances. UN funding reviews redefine multilateral engagement. Warnings to BRICS assert geopolitical boundaries.
Each move generates both advantage and counter-pressure.
Supporters see strategic realism and national assertiveness. Critics see instability and fragmentation.
The long-term impact will depend on whether short-term leverage translates into durable structural gains, or whether cumulative friction erodes the very systems the United States seeks to dominate.
What is clear is that Trump II has reintroduced transactional statecraft at scale. The coming years will determine whether that approach produces resilience or volatility in the American and global order.
More…
