
Trump Doctrine 2.0
According to AI, "Presidential doctrines in US foreign policy are major, overarching policy stances or strategies announced by a president, often shaping the nation's approach to international relations for a significant period. These doctrines are not legally binding but reflect a president's vision for the world and guide their actions on the global stage. They often emerge in response to specific geopolitical situations and can have lasting impacts on U.S. foreign policy."
Major US doctrines proclaimed by various American Presidents like Monroe, Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Biden and Trump reflected major policy statements of US administration on foreign policy matters.
How various American presidents after Second World War influenced the world through their doctrines indicated cold war and post-cold war realities. Trump Doctrine 2.0 is a recent phenomenon which was proclaimed in his second term following a set of events like the Russia-Ukraine War, the War in Gaza, and the Indo-Pak armed conflict of May 7-10 and the Israel-Iran war. Trump Doctrine, proclaimed in his first presidency, focused on accomplishing his objective enshrined in 'Make America Great Again', but the doctrine declared in his second term covered a wide range of international issues. After assuming power on January 20, 2025 Trump came up with strange type of ideas like getting hold of Greenland; making Canada the 51st province of America; getting control of Panama Canal; and renaming Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. He also talked about ending wars starting with the ones in Ukraine and Gaza. But, most of his ideas, part of what is termed his makeshift doctrine, in his first 100 days in power were overshadowed with his tariff war and taking credit for the Indo-Pak ceasefire and ending the Israel-Iran. All that enabled him to claim that he deserves Nobel Peace Prize.
What is Trump Doctrine 2.0? Is it like other doctrines of various American Presidents proclaimed since the Monroe doctrine? Is Trump Doctrine taken seriously by the world given his maverick and unpredictable personality? Is the US capable of proceeding with Trump Doctrine and what are the contradictions which are reflected in American president's policy statements? Some of the doctrines proclaimed by American presidents were announced during State of Union Address by US presidents and others were a reflection of their stance on various foreign policy matters. While the Monroe, Carter, Truman and Bush doctrines were pretty focused, the so-called Trump Doctrine is haphazard.
According to a Reuters piece by Steve Holland and David Brunnstrom titled 'The latest US foray into military action has a name: The Trump Doctrine' dated June 26, 2025, "To some observers, however, the new doctrine sounds like an effort to offer a tidy framework to describe a foreign policy that often looks unpredictable and inconsistent I don't think Trump has a doctrine. I think Trump has only held instincts, [says Middle East analyst Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]."
A report in Politico magazine of June 24, 2025 titled "Vance outlines the 'Trump Doctrine' at political dinner in Ohio" quotes Vice President JD Vance as saying, "What I call the Trump Doctrine is quite simple: Number one, you articulate a clear American interest and that's, in this case, that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. Number two, you try to aggressively diplomatically solve that problem. And number three, when you can't solve it diplomatically, you use overwhelming military power to solve it and then you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict."
Trump is known for making U-turns in his policy statements. On the eve of the Indo-Pak military confrontation on May 7, he and his vice president made it clear that the US had nothing to do with that conflict, only to take credit for the ceasefire later. When Israel attacked Iran on June 13 and Iran retaliated Trump made it clear that America was not behind Israel in its attack on Iran but within hours he began to actively support the Jewish state. Furthermore, he stated that in two weeks' time he would decide about whether or not to attack Iran, but within 24 hours his B-2 bombers attacked Iranian nuclear installations. Such U-turns reflect incoherence and inconsistency of Trump's mindset. He hailed the Iran-Israel ceasefire and used offensive words condemning violation of the ceasefire by both Israel and Iran.
Trump Doctrine is a fallacy because of three main reasons.
First, instead of acting like a statesman and a strategist, the US president is behaving like a person vying for gaining undue popularity without articulating his vision on foreign policy objectives. Once overshadowed with other foreign policy challenges like the Russia-Ukraine war, the conflict in Gaza and the Israel-Iran war, Trump's earlier pronouncements like annexing Greenland, taking control of Panama canal, making Canada America's 51st state and renaming Gulf of Mexico as Gulf of America slipped into background. It means a doctrine which is a set of brief policy statement is not reflected in Trump's speeches or in his State of Union address. In his address spanning one hour and forty minutes before the Joint Session of US Congress on March 4, 2025, Trump stated, "Six weeks ago I stood beneath the dome of this capitol and proclaimed the dawn of the golden age of America. From that moment on it has been nothing but swift and unrelenting action to usher in the greatest and most successful era in the history of our country. We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years or eight years, and we are just getting started."
Second, the so-called Trump Doctrine of 2025 will be followed by other doctrines in coming years which will contradict his earlier policy statements. One can expect chaos and dwindling of American power in view of inconsistent and incoherent position of Trump administration in the days to come.
Finally, Trump's rash and maverick temperament will plunge the US in internal chaos and renewed conflict with China and NATO allies. It will also give an opportunity to other powers to effectively challenge American tutelage in global affairs.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
Paramount settles with Trump over ‘60 Minutes' interview for $16 million
NEW YORK: CBS parent company Paramount late on Tuesday settled a lawsuit filed by U.S. President Donald Trump over an interview broadcast in October, the latest concession by a media company to a president who has targeted outlets over what he describes as false or misleading coverage. Paramount said it would pay $16 million to settle the suit with the money allocated to Trump's future presidential library, and not paid to Trump 'directly or indirectly.' 'The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret,' the company statement added. Shares of Paramount were up 0.5% in premarket trading on Wednesday. Trump filed a $10-billion lawsuit against CBS in October, alleging the network deceptively edited an interview that aired on its '60 Minutes' news program with then-vice president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris to 'tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party' in the election. In an amended complaint filed in February, Trump bumped his claim for damages to $20 billion. CBS aired two versions of the Harris interview in which she appears to give different answers to the same question about the Israel-Hamas war, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Texas. CBS previously said the lawsuit was 'completely without merit' and had asked a judge to dismiss the case. Trump's legal team welcomed the settlement on Wednesday. 'With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people,' a spokesperson said. Trump escalates feud with Musk Paramount said it also agreed that 60 Minutes would release transcripts of interviews with future U.S. presidential candidates after they aired, subject to redactions as required for legal or national security concerns. A spokesperson for Paramount Chair Shari Redstone was unavailable for comment. The case entered mediation in April. Trump alleged CBS's editing of the interview violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, which makes it illegal to use false, misleading or deceptive acts in commerce. Media advocacy groups said Trump's novel use of such laws against news outlets could be a way of circumventing legal protections for the press, which can only be held liable for defamation against public figures if they say something they knew or should have known was false. The settlement comes as Paramount prepares for an $8.4-billion merger with Skydance Media, which will require approval from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. On the campaign trail last year, Trump threatened to revoke CBS' broadcasting license if elected. He has repeatedly lashed out against the news media, often casting unfavorable coverage as 'fake news.' The Paramount settlement follows a decision by Walt Disney -owned ABC News to settle a defamation case brought by Trump. As part of that settlement, which was made public on December 14, the network donated $15 million to Trump's presidential library and publicly apologized for comments by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for rape. Trump must put his words into action It also follows a second settlement, by Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta Platforms, which on January 29 said it had agreed to pay about $25 million to settle a lawsuit by Trump over the company's suspension of his accounts after the January 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol. Trump has vowed to pursue more claims against the media. On December 17, he filed a lawsuit against the Des Moines Register newspaper and its former top pollster over its poll published on November 2 that showed Harris leading Trump by three percentage points in Iowa. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and an order barring the Des Moines Register from engaging in 'ongoing deceptive and misleading acts and practices' related to polling. A Des Moines Register representative said the organization stands by its reporting and that the lawsuit was without merit. On June 30 Trump dropped the federal lawsuit and refiled it in an Iowa state court.


Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Kanye West denied Australian visa after controversial Hitler-themed song sparks public backlash
Kanye West, the American rapper now legally known as Ye, has been denied entry into Australia following the release of his controversial song Heil Hitler, which has been widely condemned and banned from major platforms including Apple Music, Spotify, and YouTube. Australia's Home Affairs Minister, Tony Burke, disclosed the visa cancellation during an interview with ABC's Afternoon Briefing on Wednesday. He was addressing the government's broader approach to rejecting visa applicants who promote hate speech or extremist views. He elaborated that, unlike typical visa cancellations involving public speakers, Ye's case was unique due to the nature of the content and its impact. 'The only one I can think of where it wasn't for public advocacy – the visa – but we cancelled it anyway, would be Kanye West,' Burke said. Burke noted that Ye has longstanding ties to Australia—his wife, Bianca Censori, is from Melbourne—and had visited the country frequently. However, officials reassessed his visa in light of both the May release of Heil Hitler and Ye's history of offensive and antisemitic remarks. 'Even for the lowest level of visa, when my officials looked at it, they cancelled that following the announcement of that song,' he stated. Emphasizing the government's stance, Burke added, 'What's not sustainable is to import hatred.' He reaffirmed that each visa application is assessed independently under Australia's Migration Act, particularly against its strict character requirements. A spokesperson for the Department of Home Affairs declined to comment on individual cases but confirmed that visa refusals or cancellations may occur if individuals pose a risk to the community.


Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Hamas orders Gaza clan leader to surrender, accuses him of treason
CAIRO: The interior ministry in Gaza on Wednesday ordered the leader of a well-armed Bedouin clan defying the group's control of the Palestinian enclave to surrender and face trial, accusing him of treason. A ministry statement said the decision was taken by what it called a 'Revolutionary Court'. Yasser Abu Shabab, who does not recognise the authority of Hamas and accuses the militants of hurting the interests of Gaza, had 10 days to surrender, it said. The court urged Palestinians to inform Hamas security officials about the whereabouts of Abu Shabab, who has so far remained beyond their reach in the Rafah area of southern Gaza held by Israeli troops. The Abu Shabab group described the Hamas court's order as a 'sitcom that doesn't frighten us, nor does it frighten any free man who loves his homeland and its dignity', in a post on the Facebook page that usually carried the group's announcements. Trump urges Hamas to accept 'final proposal' for 60-day Gaza ceasefire Hamas, which accuses Abu Shabab of looting U.N. aid trucks and alleges that he is backed by Israel, has sent some of its top fighters to kill him, two Hamas sources and two other sources familiar with the situation told Reuters last month. Abu Shabab's group told Reuters at the time that it was a popular force protecting humanitarian aid from looting by escorting aid trucks and denied getting support from Israel or contacts with the Israeli army. It accused Hamas of violence and muzzling dissent. Israel has said it has backed some of Gaza's clans against Hamas, but has not said which.