What is Trump's version of Pax Americana?

When U.S. President Donald Trump was reelected in 2025, there was speculation and anxiety about how his second term would transform the world. One of the more pessimistic predictions was that Trump would return the world to the geopolitics of the 1930s.

According to this prediction, Trump’s America would turn fully isolationist, withdrawing from international trade and security alliances. With America disengaged from world affairs, today’s revisionist powers, similar to the Axis powers of the 1930s, would launch aggressive global expansion campaigns and subjugate countries in Asia and Europe. Ultimately, this scenario envisioned the United States being drawn into a Third World War against these resurgent powers, with the outcome uncertain.

For the past year, the Trump administration has implemented some policies that reinforced critics’ worst fears. Even U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, former Republican Senate Majority Leader, observed similarities with the 1930s when explaining his opposition to Trump’s tariff policies. Others have compared Trump’s diplomatic endeavors towards Russia and North Korea with appeasement policies toward Nazi Germany.

Other aspects of Trump’s policies, however, suggest that his administration has not disengaged from global affairs. Far from embracing isolationism, Trump has continued the interventionist foreign policies characteristic of previous U.S. administrations. This year, his administration launched airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and Yemen’s Houthi militias. It has also conducted military operations in the Caribbean and Pacific against ships suspected of drug trafficking.

Trump has not been overtly accommodating toward the geopolitical ambitions of certain countries. Despite his expressed desire for a deal with Russia, he has, for now, refrained from endorsing Vladimir Putin’s demands regarding Ukraine and NATO. Instead, Trump has reluctantly endorsed increased sanctions on Russia while continuing arms sales to Ukraine. In East Asia, Trump has continued arms sales to Taiwan and has approved South Korea’s construction of a nuclear-powered submarine, despite protests from China and North Korea. Finally, in Latin America, Trump has elevated confrontational measures toward Venezuela’s government, even hinting at the prospect of regime change.

Trump’s foreign policy did display a marked departure from the previous U.S. administrations in terms of support for multilateral international institutions, the promotion of global democracy, international cooperation on environmental protections and humanitarian crises. Trump’s critics regard his foreign policy as escalating international instability and conflicts. Trump, however, has claimed commitment to “world peace” and says he has stopped seven wars this year alone. Trump has been explicit in his desire to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, a puzzling want. Why would a self-proclaimed “America First” president seek praise for achieving world peace?

Despite comparisons to the 1930s, Trump’s foreign policy, in some ways, reflects a nostalgia for a different time period of “Pax Americana”: the 1990s. U.S. global hegemony appeared supreme, with no major international wars. Violent regional conflicts occurred, but the United States could decide selectively which conflicts to intervene in (like Kosovo) or ignore (like Rwanda).

Trump’s rise to the presidency has been, in part, a reflection of political fatigue with the transformation of U.S. foreign policy since the 9/11 terror attacks. As part of a global “war on terror,” Bush and later the Obama administration engaged in long-term military intervention and “nation-building” projects. Eventually, the American public became disillusioned by the complex challenges of establishing comprehensive, sustainable peace worldwide. Trump’s foreign policy, rather than a complete global disengagement, may be more accurately described as an aspiration to return to a time when America’s role as world police appeared simpler and easier.

Despite differences in political ideology, the Clinton administration carried out military interventions in the 1990s that are comparable to those undertaken today by the Trump administration. The Clinton administration showed caution regarding full-scale military interventions, learning from its operational setbacks in Somalia. Instead, Clinton launched a series of military air strikes targeting countries such as Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Serbia. Clinton also considered preemptive strikes against North Korea’s nuclear facilities before agreeing to the 1994 nuclear deal. These military operations were insufficient in resolving the core causes of regional conflicts; yet U.S. policymakers at the time regarded them as a low-cost display of U.S. might that imposed restraints on targeted conflict actors.

For the Trump administration, the return of Pax Americana of the 1990s may be the ideal political outcome. Through selective displays of military might, adversaries are coerced into restraint without entrapping the U.S. in costly wars. Conflicts in the Middle East and Europe may not be permanently resolved and could reignite in the future. Regardless, Trump could claim he had achieved “peace in his time” and was deserving of the Nobel Prize. The negotiators of the Oslo Peace Accord in the 90s also received Nobels, despite its limitations in achieving enduring peace.

The challenge is that geopolitics has changed since the 1990s. Today, the U.S. faces a resurgent, ambitious Russia and China, as well as other regimes. Would limited displays of coercive measures still be sufficient to pressure these actors?

A hopeful prediction is that these countries will show calculated restraint. Russia will sign an armistice with Ukraine. China will not attack Taiwan. Iran will limit its aggression against Israel. They may bide their time to assert their geopolitical ambitions against a declining America.

A more concerning outcome is that some regimes may take calculated risks to directly challenge Trump, putting his resolve to the test. Will Trump back down or respond with strength? It seems the ball may be on their side of the court in influencing how Trump’s foreign policy changes in the next few years.

Lee Jong-eun (Jong.Lee@ngu.edu) is an assistant professor of political science at North Greenville University. Prior to this, he served as a South Korean Airforce intelligence officer.