I. The Great Unraveling: A Departure from Post-War Order
The bedrock of global stability, meticulously constructed and maintained by the United States over three-quarters of a century, rested upon a foundational strategic consensus: alliances were inviolable, and commitments—economic, security, and diplomatic—were sacred. The ascendancy of Donald J. Trump shattered this paradigm, replacing it with an erratic doctrine of “America First” that redefined diplomatic engagement as a series of short-term, zero-sum business transactions. This radical shift did not merely reposition the United States; it actively introduced systemic chaos, isolating the nation and creating widespread global instability.
The record of the administration’s initial foreign policy efforts clearly established a trajectory of American weakness and global chaos. This approach caused long-lasting damage to the foundational pillar of U.S. economic strength: stability. Conditions of uncertainty are profoundly detrimental to investment, leading both global corporations and small businesses to refrain from making the major commitments that drive employment growth.
Moreover, the Trump approach was marked by inherent contradictions that undermined policy coherence. While the rhetoric often capitalized on populist discontent regarding globalization and the so-called “forever wars,” the President simultaneously called for isolationism and demanded a more robust military posture. This internal tension often resulted in contradictory actions, such as authorizing cruise missile strikes against a Syrian military airfield in April 2017 while later announcing the abrupt withdrawal of troops in December 2018—a surprise decision that prompted the resignation of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. Such incoherence signaled to foreign capitals that U.S. policy was dictated by personal instinct rather than established strategic calculation, creating an environment ripe for miscalculation and conflict.
The conceptual shift in U.S. engagement extended beyond simple transactionalism, becoming something far more destructive to the liberal world order. Analysts have argued that the approach shifted toward a “tributary” system, where the United States expected deference and payment from partners. This is a model that explicitly favored autocratic states over democratic ones, seeking immediate fealty rather than promoting shared principles. This view aligns with the philosophy that the global system is merely a struggle for power, where national strength is the only rule, and “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. When allies were subsequently targeted, criticized, or threatened with tariffs, they were not being treated as partners in mutual defense, but as debtors owing tribute, fundamentally corroding the basis of trust.
II. Geopolitical Blunders: Ceding Influence and Inviting Chaos
The most definitive evidence of American unreliability lay in the administration’s eagerness to dismantle core international agreements, achieving little strategic gain while immediately damaging U.S. credibility and creating strategic vacuums that global rivals were quick to fill.
The Catastrophic TPP Withdrawal: A Gift to Beijing
The decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in January 2017 represented a profound geopolitical blunder. The TPP was intended not just as a trade deal, but as a critical strategic asset in countering China’s growing influence, designed to ensure the U.S. and its allies shaped the rules governing trade in the Asia-Pacific region.
By unilaterally abandoning the TPP, the United States forfeited its opportunity to lead in setting regional trade rules and standards—especially crucial in emerging sectors like artificial intelligence and digital trade. The remaining members of the bloc subsequently moved forward, establishing the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This U.S. self-inflicted wound presented a massive opportunity for China to establish economic leadership in the region. Subsequent attempts by Washington to compete, such as through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, are inherently handicapped. Because the U.S. refuses to offer improved market access measures like tariff reductions, it is forced to compete with “one hand effectively tied behind its back” against China, which can offer market access through its participation in agreements like RCEP.
The Iran Deal Fiasco: Unilateralism That Isolated Washington
Equally destabilizing was the unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran nuclear deal, in May 2018. This decision was taken despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) repeatedly certifying Iran’s continued compliance with the agreement.
The withdrawal was an act of extreme diplomatic unreliability that immediately strained relations with the United States’ closest allies. The leaders of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement noting their “regret and concern” and reaffirmed their continued commitment to the JCPOA, calling it essential for their shared security. They explicitly urged the U.S. to ensure the structure of the deal remained intact and to “avoid taking action which obstructs its full implementation by all other parties to the deal”.
The immediate geopolitical fallout was severe. European and Asian allies sought ways to protect their trade and investment with Iran, but many multinational firms were unlikely to risk the hefty fines associated with violating renewed U.S. sanctions. Strategically, the withdrawal risked creating a new proliferation crisis, pushing Tehran, which faced intense domestic pressure, to resume aspects of the nuclear program restricted by the JCPOA. Furthermore, the U.S. succeeded in isolating itself, pushing Iran politically and economically toward Moscow and Beijing, who viewed the U.S. mistake as an opportunity to be exploited.10 The isolation reached such an extent that Europe effectively found itself siding with Moscow and Beijing against Washington regarding the deal’s survival.
The combined abandonment of the TPP, which governed economic relations, and the JCPOA, which involved hard security, demonstrated to the world that U.S. treaty signatures hold little value, subject to instant cancellation based on the political preferences or personal animosity of the sitting president.
III. The Wall Street Dictate: Understanding the ‘TACO’ Policy Instability
The diplomatic chaos generated by the administration’s trade policy was so consistent, so predictable in its unpredictability, that it fostered a new financial phenomenon: the “TACO” trade, an acronym that permanently branded the President’s approach as unreliable and vacillating.
The Acronym of Retreat: Trump Always Chickens Out
The term “Trump Always Chickens Out” (TACO) gained prominence in 2025, originating on Wall Street. It describes the President’s distinct pattern of issuing aggressive, bold tariff threats against trading partners, only to later delay, soften, or reverse them when faced with an adverse market reaction or political pressure.
This cycle of threat and retreat became the basis for specific, profitable trading strategies. Financial columnists noted the TACO trade involved buying stocks cheaply after a tariff announcement caused market plunges, and then selling them for profit after the tariffs were delayed or reduced and the market rebounded. Tariff threats routinely shook global financial markets; for example, the S&P 500 fell significantly in May 2019 alone due to trade tensions, and the VIX volatility index soared past 25 on tariff headlines. The subsequent market rebound, aided by the TACO narrative, reinforced the belief among investors that “market turmoil will correct the president’s course”.
This phenomenon illustrates a profound instability: the financial market effectively acted as an external check on the executive branch’s policy, overriding strategic goals whenever the economic backlash became too severe. This means policy was driven not by a coherent strategic vision, but by volatile market indicators, reinforcing the instability of the executive branch.
Transactionalism Beyond Economic Logic
This transactional style damaged diplomatic credibility, as foreign partners were left with “no reason to trust the Trump administration in negotiations”. Moreover, the tariffs often lacked sound economic logic. One of the competing justifications for tariffs—that they would provide reliable revenue to reduce the tax burden—was fundamentally undermined by their ever-shifting, unpredictable nature. Unreliable tariffs cannot constitute reliable government revenue.
This transactional coercion extended into non-economic domains, showcasing geopolitical recklessness. For example, the administration used tariff threats as leverage to force compliance on immigration issues, threatening Colombia with escalating tariffs until the country agreed to accept deported migrants without restrictions. The transactional mindset, which relies on threats and unpredictability, fundamentally stems from an aversion to commitment and relationships. When this personal trait is transposed onto foreign policy, it actively prevents the cultivation of the long-term diplomatic trust required for reliable bilateral relations, forcing allies to prioritize risk management over reliance on Washington.
The economic cost of this systemic volatility is clearly demonstrable:
IV. A Withered Alliance: The Strategic Devaluation of NATO and Partnerships
For decades, the strategic advantage of the United States rested on its robust, principle-based alliance structure. The administration’s policies systematically attacked these alliances, turning indispensable partners into targets and forcing them to prioritize strategic self-reliance.
The Assault on Collective Security
The President repeatedly criticized NATO members, arguing they relied too heavily on the U.S. for their security. This rhetorical assault created profound fissures in the transatlantic relationship, undermining the key strategic advantage the U.S. held over global rivals.
The strategic cost was clearly articulated by former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who warned against the approach, stating emphatically that “Nations with allies thrive, nations without allies wither.”. Mattis, whose resignation was a direct response to the administration’s foreign policy directions, stressed that the U.S. lacked a sufficiently strategic approach and that effective leadership requires being willing to be persuaded by allies, acknowledging that “Not all the good ideas come from the nation with the most aircraft carriers”. By humiliating allies and treating transatlantic trust as an expendable commodity, the administration undercut the leverage necessary to compete confidently with countries like China, forcing the U.S. to confront global challenges with a “fractured front”.
Internal Chaos and Diplomatic Malpractice
The instability was fundamentally rooted in the executive branch’s own internal chaos. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson highlighted the “total misalignment between Trump’s instincts and the policy those in his administration want to or are trying to carry out,” indicating that only the “veneer of process” governed foreign relations. This profound lack of institutional coherence translated directly into external unreliability.
Observing this chaos, foreign governments were compelled to adopt a defensive posture, seeking to merely “run out the clock” on the administration. They managed risk by making small, short-term concessions while simultaneously seeking “robust alternatives” to a close U.S. partnership in the longer term. This institutionalized hedging, where allies build “Trump antibodies” into their defense and economic strategies, ensures that the consequences will reach far into the future, as countries internalize the idea that the United States is a less reliable protector.
Furthermore, the administration demonstrated a disregard for the diplomatic tools of statecraft. Budget cuts crippled the State Department and foreign development assistance. Senior officials, including Senator Lindsey Graham, warned that crippling the State Department was a threat to security, stressing that soft power connection and diplomacy are “just as important as any military power we have”. By creating these gaps, the U.S. ceded opportunities for influence to Russia and China, who moved quickly to increase their sway around the world.
V. Assertive Sovereignty: The Indictment of Instability from New Delhi
The impact of U.S. unpredictability was not confined to Europe and East Asia; it strained relationships even with strategic partners like India. While New Delhi moved closer to Washington in recent years, the aggressive, transactional policies and critical rhetoric—such as referencing India’s tariffs—revived “historical suspicions” and a pattern of “condescension and distrust” from the West. This forced the Modi government to channel public sentiment into its U.S. engagements, strengthening an assertive display of sovereignty.
The administration’s transactional approach was strategically short-sighted, risking the push of India closer to rival powers like Russia and China—a major counter-productive outcome for U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Indo-Pacific.
Jaishankar’s Public Rebuke of Hypocrisy
The most vivid demonstration of the price of U.S. unreliability came from Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar. He delivered a sharp, public indictment of American hypocrisy regarding trade and sanctions, which signaled that key partners would no longer yield to external pressure on their economic decisions.
Responding pointedly to U.S. criticism regarding India’s legitimate oil imports, Dr. Jaishankar offered a quote that captured the global perception of American selective principles:
“It’s funny to have people who work for a pro-business American administration accusing other people of doing business. If you have a problem buying oil or refined products from India, don’t buy it. Nobody forces you to buy it. Europe buys, America buys, so you don’t like it, don’t buy it.”
This forceful assertion of sovereignty came in the context of the U.S. imposing tariffs on India over its Russian oil purchases while notably sparing the European Union and China from similar penalties. Jaishankar publicly noted that principles were being “applied selectively and what is preached is not necessarily practiced”.
Furthermore, when the President claimed India had offered a “basically zero tariffs” deal to the United States, Jaishankar professionally rebuffed the claim, insisting that “any trade deal has to work for both countries” and must be mutually beneficial. The failure of coercive diplomacy was laid bare: the reliance on transactional coercion failed to change the behavior of a key partner and instead resulted in a public diplomatic humiliation for the U.S.. The instability of the U.S. approach forced strategic partners like India to adopt an openly assertive diplomatic stance as a protective measure against rapid U.S. policy shifts.
The cumulative testimony from U.S. and international officials confirms the widespread distrust generated by this era of unstable foreign policy:
VI. The Permanent Cost of Unreliability
The defining feature of Donald Trump’s tenure in foreign affairs was the institutionalization of unreliability. His administration elevated personal instinct and short-term transaction above long-term strategic commitment, guaranteeing the outcome he sought to avoid: a world permanently less stable and less reliant on American leadership.
The cumulative effect of geopolitical blunders—sacrificing economic governance in Asia through the TPP withdrawal, isolating the U.S. from Europe over the JCPOA, and systemically assaulting NATO—is that the U.S. now confronts global challenges with diminished leverage and a strategically fractured front. The internal chaos, marked by the “total misalignment” between the President’s political instincts and the policy execution required by his diplomats and generals , directly resulted in aggressive instability, increasing the likelihood of conflict globally.
Foreign governments, forced to manage risk in the face of the erratic ‘TACO’ pattern, have fundamentally reassessed their dependence on the United States. Their decision to seek “robust alternatives” ensures that the U.S. now operates in a global arena where it is permanently perceived as a “less reliable protector” and a “more vigorous competitor”.
This cycle of self-inflicted damage—from geopolitical missteps to transactional coercion that alienated indispensable partners—firmly establishes Donald Trump as the most unstable and untrustworthy U.S. president in modern history, one whose policies fundamentally corroded the very foundation of U.S. global leadership. The world order has been fundamentally changed, driven by the redefinition of legitimacy and a definitive shift in the balance of power resulting from America’s decision to forgo its role as a strategic anchor.