or a people claiming to wear democracy on their sleeves, the country’s 60th election can be no small occasion. An intense electoral battle between Democratic Party’s Kamala Harris and Republican Party’s Donald Trump had the world holding its breath. In the end, Trump emerged victorious.

Trump’s populist bent has been evident throughout his election campaign. A heightened focus on preserving the national security and promises to “make America great again” were important planks in his victory. His election in 2016 was seen as a leap into the unknown—a risk the American citizens were willing to take. Two fundamental determinants of a leader’s success in the US today are economic performance and immigration laws. Among his Republican constituency, Trump’s government was perceived as competent, particularly in comparison to Biden’s.

Kamala Harris was seen as an extension of the Biden administration and reflecting the same principles. The promise of economic stability may have prevailed over concerns regarding his civil rights record for fence sitters. His political resurrection is a matter of fascination for his diehard fans. Indicted and detested by millions, he returns with an overwhelming electoral victory. Trump had left office in 2021 with a trail of mob supporters ransacking the Capitol. This had stirred speculation about his compromised state of mind. It was suggested then that he was too unhinged to be trusted to lead the country. However, he managed to rally back. In the eyes of many, particularly Democratic voters, he is an opportunistic demagogue; too dense to be regarded a strategist and too clever to be labeled honest.

A tactician through and through, his arc in American politics is one for the books. A Harris victory would have made her the first female president in 250 years. But that was not to be.

It is imperative to recognise that Trump is not necessarily against the neo-liberal world order. If it benefits the US, he would indulge in international affairs; if it does not, he can openly condemn it. Despite his campaign including an anti-war agenda, his foreign policy could sustain conflicts. His decision to pull out of Afghanistan was not due to some humanitarian consideration; the campaign was proving too costly to sustain. The scales were not weighed in favour of the US. His approach to foreign policy cannot be characterised as ‘non-interventionist’ or ‘isolationist.’ Were that the case, the US would not have been at the brink of war several times during his administration. His attitude towards North Korea and China is illustrative.

Regarding the Middle East, particularly Palestine, neither Harris nor Trump came up with a promise to end the war in Gaza, securing the release of hostages or working towards a two-state solution. Trump did not say much, apart from promising to bring peace to the region. His stance on the Israel-Palestine crisis has not been much different from Kamala’s. No wonder Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has sent him a warm message of felicitation over his victory, calling it a “historical comeback.” The Palestinians have previously boycotted Trump over his disregard for their territorial sovereignty. Their disillusionment with the Trump administration intensified after he brokered the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab countries. The deal did not acknowledge Palestine’s right to exist and protect itself from Israeli occupation. The nation states signing the Abraham Accords were provided with US weaponry in exchange for their recognition of Israel.

Elsewhere in Middle East, Tehran has expressed its indifference to the election result, acknowledging that the US policies towards Iran are rooted in consensus narratives in the Congress.

As far as Ukraine is concerned, the president-elect has promised to end the war “in a single day.” Though he has not provided any detail, he is likely to propose a deal between Russia and Ukraine, thus delaying Ukraine’s accession into NATO. His eagerness to end the war stems from his unwillingness to pour billions of dollars to sustain it. In Trump’s world view, the overarching principles of democracy and liberalism are tools to weaponise for political gain, not ideas to internalise. From a theoretical standpoint, Trump leans more towards offensive realism than liberalism.

The foreign policy divergence between the European leadership—particularly Germany and France—and Trump is likely to resurface. His approach to keep “America first” has larger implications, particularly in the context of NATO. For a president like Trump, a multilateral defence alliance is always a thorn on his side. He has previously voiced his suspicion of its purpose and accused Europe of being a free-rider. A Trump-led US withdrawal from the NATO is however unlikely. Given that more than two thirds of NATO’s defence budget comes from the US, the alliance might not be able to sustain itself without the US.

Overall, US foreign policy under Trump is likely to remain as complex as ever. It is paramount for the US Congress to seek an end to the war in Gaza, bring relief for the Palestinians and work towards establishing peace in collaboration with major powers such as China.

Ejaz Hussain has a PhD in political science from Heidelberg University and a postdoc from University of California, Berkeley. He is a DAAD, FDDI and Fulbright fellow and an associate professor at Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at ejaz.bhatty@gmail.com.

Sofia Najeeb is a senior-year student and a research assistant at the Lahore School of Economics. She is pursuing a BS degree in political science