Photo via NDTV
***
Since his introduction into politics, the American public has known Donald Trump, for better or for worse, as an unconventional political figure. In his 2016 presidential campaign, he criticized establishment Republican figures, such as Jeb Bush, for their involvement in the Iraq War, positioning himself as an anti-war outsider to the party. His message resonated with a nation weary of never-ending wars waged in distant lands, desperate for something other than the status quo.
Though many were duped by Trump’s anti-war campaign promises in 2016, no one has the same plausible deniability this time around. During his first term, President Trump broke records such as the most drone strikes issued by a president (2,243 as of March 2019, when he revoked the rule on reporting them), surpassing former President Barack Obama’s record of 1,878 during his eight years in office. This dramatic surge in aerial warfare, along with loosened rules of engagement and increased troop levels, ravaged countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and was also responsible for countless civilian casualties.
Additionally, Trump reinstated his “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, which in his last administration involved abandoning the Iran nuclear deal, employing hostile rhetoric, imposing severe sanctions, and repeatedly bringing the United States to the brink of war, most notably with the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.
In Yemen, Trump supported the Saudi and UAE-led onslaught, vetoing two bipartisan resolutions to end American military involvement in the war.
His approach to nuclear security was equally disturbing, including the withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, the failure to renew the START Treaty with Russia, and his reckless negotiations with North Korea. In his first four years as president, Trump escalated every inherited conflict through his aggressive and undiplomatic tactics, demolishing any credibility for his anti-war ethos.
Nonetheless, in November of 2024, the American people again voted to elect Donald Trump as president. Within the few months he has been back in office, Trump has already demonstrated a more hawkish orientation in foreign policy than before. Perhaps emboldened by the nature of a second term, new Supreme Court-granted immunity, or maybe by his ability to evade any consequences for his numerous crimes thus far, Trump has exercised an unprecedented amount of executive authority to commit illegal acts of war and threaten other sovereign nations.
The scope and intensity of Trump’s war-mongering has increased significantly, even toward allied countries. With Mexico, one of the United States’ primary trading partners, Trump has repeatedly threatened hefty tariffs and even sanctions, citing water disputes, drug trafficking, and immigrants entering from the southern border.
This economic warfare was compounded by the designation of several Mexican cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations in January 2025, a move experts suggest could pave the way for military intervention. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has been unequivocal in her position that “The Mexican people will under no circumstances accept interventions, intrusions, or any other action from abroad that are detrimental to the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of the nation… (including) violations of Mexican territory, whether by land, sea, or air,” in a statement made in February 2025. However, on March 13, Trump’s nominee for Ambassador to Mexico, Ronald Johnson, implied that the administration would not rule out unilateral military action. A military incursion into Mexico is a horrifying possibility that grows more likely by the day as its sovereignty is openly disregarded by such attitudes.
Trump’s hyper-antagonistic attitude towards Mexico reflects a broader pattern of his foreign policy approach to the Americas, characterized by an imperialistic drive to control sovereign countries through economic coercion, weaponized tariffs, and threats of military intervention. As of April 11, U.S. troops are set to deploy near the Panama Canal for military training and “other activities,” according to Agence France-Presse, which saw the initiation of a new joint deal between the U.S. and Panama. This deal comes after months of reiterated threats from Trump to “take back” the Panama Canal and is a considerable concession to the U.S.
Another concerning development in Trump’s agenda for Latin America is his orientation towards Venezuela and Venezuelan immigrants living in the U.S. After invoking an eighteenth-century law called the Alien Enemies Act, the Trump administration flagrantly violated a judicial order by transferring hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants living in the U.S to an El Salvadoran prison, claiming that they were part of the gang Tren de Aragua. The migrants were flown to another country without due process, and the White House has yet to provide evidence for most of the deportees’ membership in gangs or criminal activity.
Further exacerbating relations, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have very publicly stated their opposition to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, specifically in matters of oil and migration. Trump suspended Venezuela’s license to export oil to the US, revoking oil giant Chevron’s permission to operate in the country, and threatened a 25% tariff on any country buying Venezuelan oil.
The United States has interfered in Latin American political spheres throughout its history, and, in a sense, Trump’s actions are a return to a consistent pattern of imperialist actions. However, Trump’s recent stance toward North America has indeed never been paralleled by any U.S. president in the last century. The United States’ long-time ally and largest trading partner, Canada, has not been immune to Trump’s attacks on their economy and sovereignty. Canada has also received threats of increased tariffs and aggressive statements from Trump, saying he wants to make the country the 51st U.S. state.
Even more bizarre is the Trump administration’s fixation on acquiring Greenland. On March 28, a delegation led by Vice President JD Vance traveled to Greenland, much to the displeasure of the Greenlandic citizens and government. Just days before the trip, the delegation’s scheduled visit to residents in Nuuk, the capital city, was canceled because no one was willing to meet with Vance and his wife. Despite the Danish government’s clear objections, Trump has repeatedly stressed the importance of obtaining Greenland for national security purposes. The Trump administration is making the case to the 57,000 Greenlandic residents that Denmark has failed in managing the island. The administration argues that it will protect them from Russian and Chinese encroachment and touts the possibility of giving each resident $10,000 annually. This pursuit of Greenland and the assertive stance towards Canada and Mexico demonstrates a significant departure from traditional diplomatic norms within North America.
In the Middle East, Trump’s foreign policy continues to exhibit his worst imperialist and authoritarian tendencies. The U.S. has had tensions in the region for decades. Still, Trump’s recent rhetoric and actions are signaling an extreme escalation of the already-poor relations held with Middle Eastern countries and the various ongoing crises and conflicts occurring. After ripping up Obama’s existing nuclear agreement with Iran during his first term, Trump has repeatedly threatened military force against Iran if it does not agree to a new nuclear deal. Direct talks between the U.S. and Iran, mediated by Oman, are currently underway. And, despite hopeful reports that the negotiations are yielding “positive and constructive” results, the looming threat of military action remains. While the administration has not called an all-out war with Iran yet, Trump has already begun strikes on the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen and sent at least six B-2 bombers to a base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean as a show of force. The strikes came as a response to the Houthi assault on shipping lanes in the Red Sea and killed at least 53 people, with nearly 100 more injured, including women and children. The Houthi assault, which began in November 2023 in response to Israel’s campaign in Gaza, forced many U.S. and European shipping companies to stop using the Red Sea as long as they held ties with Israel.
The legality of these military strikes on Yemen, which did not receive explicit Congressional authorization, was immediately brought into question by lawmakers, but ultimately got much less news time and outrage than the manner in which the Trump administration handled them. On March 13, two days before the strike, Jeffery Goldberg, Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, was added to a group chat on Signal called “Houthi PC small group” where he witnessed high level officials such as JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard coordinate the aerial attack. Hegseth even texted the war plan directly to Goldberg on March 15 at 11:44 am, which included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing, approximately two hours before the bombs began to fall. Coordinating an active military operation over an unapproved app, such as Signal, raises serious national security and legal concerns. Still, the act of bombing Yemen without going through Congress is itself a violation of the law.
Amidst all the aforementioned concerns, Trump’s record and plans for Gaza stand out for their disturbing and unlawful nature. On February 4, Trump declared that “the U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip,” and permanently relocate all remaining Palestinian residents to neighboring countries. After over a year of an unprecedented war of destruction sponsored by the American government under Biden, Israel has been responsible for what experts say may be up to 186,000 deaths as of last July. The official casualty count is severely underreported due to the shutdown of the Gaza civil registration system and does not include the 62,413 people who, according to a letter to Biden from a group of U.S. physicians, have died from starvation.
In announcing his plan to take over the region, Trump let slip that the administration plans to relocate “1.7 or 1.8 million” Palestinians. This figure is at least 400,000 less than Gaza’s estimated population of 2.2 million before October 7, 2023, when the conflict began. While Trump has demonstrated an incredible propensity for spreading misinformation and a general disregard for accuracy, this statement should not be cast aside so quickly and very well could be an admittance of information not shared with the public.
At a moment where Gaza has effectively been reduced to ashes, it is hard to imagine how things could possibly get worse for the millions of Palestinians living as refugees in their own land. However, Trump’s threats to forcibly remove the population and essentially colonize the region are undoubtedly an escalation of extreme proportions.
While Donald Trump’s campaigns often featured anti-war rhetoric, criticizing past interventions and promising to avoid new conflicts, his actions and stated plans reveal intentions that are quite the opposite. Americans should brace for a bumpy four years ahead.
***
This article was edited by Emily Caro.
Thomas Tisdale 
Sinhawe Haji 
Nadia Garriga