Trump’s foreign policy: Rules for thee, not for me
Under Trump, the rules of the international order have been enforced as moral absolutes on others and quietly waived for friends, donors and deals. The American foreign policy is now run from the president’s personal ledger, not the rulebook Washington itself wrote once
In 2023, Washington welcomed the International Criminal Court (ICC)'s arrest warrant for the Russian president Vladimir Putin as a step towards accountability. Once the same court issued a warrant for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration sanctioned its chief prosecutor and kept going.
By August 2026, the list of sanctioned officials included nine of the court's 18 judges, including its president, both deputy prosecutors and its former prosecutor. Their assets were frozen, and they were cut off from the American financial system. On 10 October 2026, it added the entire Hague-based court to its Specially Designated Nationals list, effectively aiming to cut it off from the global financial system.
In August 2025, Washington imposed an additional 25% tariff on India as punishment for buying Russian oil, framing it as a penalty for bankrolling Moscow's war in Ukraine. The tariff was removed only after India gave up on Russian oil.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Barely three months later, Viktor Orbán, Donald Trump's most loyal admirer in Europe, walked out of the White House with an exemption that let Hungary keep buying Russian oil. Bangladesh, meanwhile, had formally asked the US for a special sanctions waiver to purchase refined petroleum products and diesel from Russia due to global supply chain disruptions.
That is the larger shift under US President Donald Trump. For nearly eight decades, the US wrote the rules of the international order and, however selectively, claimed to be bound by them.
Under Trump, those rules have become instruments: enforced as moral absolutes on others and quietly waived for friends, donors and deals, proving that the American foreign policy is now run from the president's personal ledger, not the rulebook Washington itself wrote once.
America's Israel paradox
The central contradiction of Trump's foreign policy lies in the sharp contrast between his approach to traditional treaty allies and his posture toward Israel.
Core democratic partners like Germany, Canada, Japan, and South Korea face constant public berating, trade tariffs, demands for protection payments, and threats of military abandonment. By contrast, Israel receives virtually unconditional, non-transactional support and billions in military financing without public scrutiny or demands for concessions.
To advance the political goals of the Israeli government, Washington shattered decades of international diplomatic consensus.
In December 2017, the administration recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moved the American embassy there, followed in 2019 by formal recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights. Both actions reversed long-standing policy and directly violated UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 478. At the UN Security Council, 14 of the 15 member states, including core allies Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, voted against the position or issued joint statements condemning Washington.
Multilateral agreements were systematically dismantled to support hardline policies.
In May 2018, the administration unilaterally withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) despite direct personal pleas from European heads of state, exposing European corporations like TotalEnergies and Airbus to secondary sanctions. Washington also withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council and UNESCO while cutting all funding to UNRWA, forcing European partners to scramble emergency funds for Palestinian refugee relief.
Similarly, the two-state framework was bypassed through the Abraham Accords. To secure normalisation agreements between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, Washington traded away major strategic chips like recognising Morocco's contested sovereignty over Western Sahara and approving advanced F-35 fighter jet sales to the UAE.
This exemption from 'America First' scrutiny is sustained by specific domestic political allies like AIPAC and American white evangelical Christians.
The war on the ICC
When international legal bodies attempted to investigate actions by allied leaders, Washington deployed aggressive coercive power. To shield Israeli leadership and American personnel from war crimes enquiries in Gaza, the West Bank, and Afghanistan, the administration enacted Executive Orders 13928 and 14203.
These executive measures authorised asset freezes, financial blocking, and entry bans against judicial officials. The State Department sanctioned ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, division head Phakiso Mochochoko, successor Karim Khan, Court President Tomoko Akane, trial judges, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, and several Palestinian human rights documentation groups.
When international legal bodies attempted to investigate actions by allied leaders, Washington deployed aggressive coercive power. To shield Israeli leadership and American personnel from war crimes enquiries in Gaza, the West Bank, and Afghanistan, the administration enacted Executive Orders 13928 and 14203.
By October 2026, the administration moved to freeze all institutional ICC assets under American jurisdiction, issuing a 180-day wind-down deadline for commercial service providers to cut ties with the tribunal.
This policy created an extreme rupture with Western allies. The majority of NATO and G7 nations are Rome Statute signatories that fund and support the court. In October 2026, six G7 nations formally broke with Washington to oppose the institutional sanctions, while European member states moved to activate the EU Blocking Statute (Regulation EC 2271/96) to nullify American sanctions and protect European financial institutions from compliance.
The Russian oil double standard
For years, Washington threatened and penalised foreign nations for purchasing Russian energy. In August 2025, the administration imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, threatening duties up to 100% under the Lindsey Graham Act of September 2026 for India's continued imports of Russian crude.
Third-party developing economies faced severe collateral damage. The construction and financing of Bangladesh's Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant by Russia's Rosatom were stalled due to US dollar clearing restrictions, SWIFT exclusions, and secondary sanctions on Russian state banks (e.g., VEB.RF). Bangladesh was forced to negotiate third-currency escrow arrangements (such as Chinese yuan and local taka accounts) and seek explicit OFAC clearances.
Yet on 9 October 2026, the administration abruptly executed a complete policy reversal. Citing domestic diesel prices reaching $6.28 per gallon that burdened American truckers and farmers, Trump announced a direct bilateral deal over a direct phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin to import over 300,000 tonnes of Russian diesel. The Treasury Department issued General Licenses authorising Russian fuel imports into American markets.
Trump's Nobel fixation
Foreign policy strategy has also frequently intersected with personal grievance, as illustrated by a multi-year pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize. Rooted in frustration over Barack Obama's 2009 award, the administration actively solicited nominations.
The White House explicitly requested Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to submit a five-page nomination letter, while publicly highlighting nominations from far-right European politicians.
This pursuit reached unusual lengths during the 2025 Venezuela episode. When opposition leader María Corina Machado handed her 2025 Nobel medal to Trump, he publicly claimed he had received the prize 'indirectly', forcing the Norwegian Nobel Committee to clarify that the honour cannot be transferred or reassigned.
Trump wrote to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre in mid-January 2026, "Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States."
He then pivoted immediately to his long-standing ambition to take control of Greenland, asserting that Denmark was incapable of protecting the Arctic island from Russia and China and warning that the US required 'complete and total control' over the territory.
The fixation escalated into open diplomatic hostility in October 2026, when the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to South African jurist Navi Pillay. After Pillay made a light remark regarding Trump's public lobbying, Trump issued furious public statements.
He called the award an 'indelible stain on Norway', labelled the committee 'Radical Ideologues' and 'Enemies of Civilisation', and accused Norway of 'ripping off' the United States. Personal offence was once again translated into official state rhetoric.
The realignment of global reliance
The broader consequence of this transactional governance is the steady erosion of international reliance on American leadership. Allies that depended on Washington for stability are taking active steps to build independent leverage.
European states are expanding independent defense capabilities and restricting foreign control over critical technologies, while middle powers are forming broader trade networks.
When international commitments are governed by personal leverage, domestic political calculations, and selective exemptions, global partners increasingly conclude that strategic reliance on Washington represents an unpredictable risk rather than a reliable asset.
