Dr. Hossam Badrawi Official Website
The foreign policy of the United States underwent a dramatic shift with Donald Trump’s presidency, characterized by what is known as “Trumpism.” This approach emphasized American interests through unconventional tools such as confrontational rhetoric, symbolic aggression, withdrawal from multilateral agreements, reliance on direct diplomacy, and a shift from multilateralism to bilateralism.
Trump also favored economic sanctions as a primary tool in his policies, imposing tariffs even on friendly nations, launching a trade war that shook global markets under the pretext of protecting American industry. He also exerted pressure on his European allies, let alone other countries.
Trump’s personality is marked by a businessman’s negotiation style, viewing politics as a series of “deals” involving wins and losses, with a strong focus on immediate results. He also prioritizes direct communication, frequently using Twitter to bypass traditional media, allowing him to shape public opinion through shock and excitement.
His political narcissism is evident in his efforts to promote his image as a “Dealmaker,” even if the outcomes are largely symbolic.
The conclusion we can draw is that “Trumpism” represented a break from traditional diplomacy, replacing it with a model based on verbal escalation and unilateral decision-making. While this approach achieved some short-term goals, Trump’s dominant personality played a key role in shaping this policy, raising questions about the sustainability of “Trumpism” as a method after his departure.
Trump’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, announced in January 2020, was known as the “Trump Peace Plan.” It included a conceptual map outlining proposed borders and regional arrangements between Israel and a future Palestinian state.
The map indicated that Israel would annex approximately 30% of the West Bank, including parts of Jordan and existing Israeli settlements, while Palestinians would be granted a demilitarized state covering the remaining 70% of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, along with additional land swaps in the Negev Desert.
The plan also proposed connecting the West Bank and Gaza via a tunnel or elevated highway to ensure geographic continuity for the Palestinian state.
In all scenarios, Jerusalem would remain the undivided capital of Israel, with the possibility of establishing a Palestinian capital in areas on the outskirts of East Jerusalem, such as Abu Dis.
The plan received mixed reactions at the time; Israel largely welcomed it, while Palestinian leaders and many international observers criticized it for being biased toward Israel and undermining the prospects of establishing a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.
In early 2025, at the start of Trump’s second term, a new proposal emerged regarding Gaza. The plan suggested that the United States take control of Gaza, redevelop the area, and forcibly displace Palestinian residents, resettling them in Jordan and Egypt. This proposal faced widespread criticism from both Arab governments and most European countries due to concerns about its feasibility and the risk of further destabilizing the region.
In response, Egypt and other Arab nations proposed alternative plans focusing on Gaza’s reconstruction without displacing its residents, emphasizing the importance of preserving the Palestinian presence in their homeland.
These initiatives reflect the ongoing complexities and differing perspectives on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with various parties proposing solutions based on their strategic interests and regional stability considerations.
I believe that Trump’s shift from forced displacement to voluntary migration is merely a superficial change. The strategy has evolved from creating a demilitarized Palestinian state to denying Palestinians both statehood and rights altogether.
