By Bruno Sergi and Mona Pearl
As we approach January 20 and the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the U.S., the world is abuzz with anticipation over the choice of destination for Air Force One’s inaugural overseas trip. Reflecting on past U.S. presidents’ first international presidential trips provides intriguing insights into their strategies. In 2021, President Biden first visited Carbis Bay, Cornwall in the United Kingdom. In 2017, President Trump selected Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for his first visit. President Obama, President Bush, and President Clinton selected Ottawa, Canada, San Cristobal, Mexico, and Vancouver, Canada respectively.
President Trump’s first foreign trip as the 45th president in 2017 included visits to Saudi Arabia, the Vatican, and Israel—stops that his top aides hoped would address concerns regarding the United States’ inconsistency in combating terrorism and extremism, reaffirm its commitment to Israel’s security and promote Middle East peace efforts, and reassure the world that the United States was not turning inward or abandoning its allies. After meeting Pope Francis at the Vatican, Trump declared he was “more determined than ever” to pursue peace in the world. President Trump’s visit to Riyadh in 2017 aimed to strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia and promote cooperation on counterterrorism, trade, and military procurement. It culminated in a significant arms deal valued at approximately USD 110 billion to bolster Saudi defense capabilities. Additionally, the trip was part of a broader strategy to engage with Muslim-majority countries and to address regional stability and security concerns.
Where will President Trump make his first international visit and outline his trade agenda? Three significant situations to address are the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza/Lebanon and ongoing trade and tariff discussions with China and the EU. These events could influence where Trump goes first, as the strategic importance of the first foreign trip is quite relevant, though it could include more than one destination, like Trump’s first presidential trip in 2017. In 2025, two landings of Air Force One could focus on the situation in Ukraine and trade issues with the EU, while another landing could be in Asia or vice versa. With significant conflicts involving Israel in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen, as well as the potential effects of Trump’s proposed tariffs on the EU, a trade war with China, and the Russia-Ukraine crisis, this voyage will have a tremendous impact on U.S. leadership. It could signal a shift in the U.S. trade agenda, impact global economic dynamics and alliances, and influence the pursuit of worldwide peace and his “MAGA” (Make America Great Again) approach to trade. Trump faces the dual challenges of military and economic conflicts, requiring strategic planning to manage tension in the Middle East while addressing disputes with China. The results of this trip could significantly influence U.S. partnerships and leadership, offering opportunities for positive change in a complex yet hopeful future.
Let’s examine how the White House could develop a strategy for a single or multiple landing approach, keeping in mind that a proper “travel strategy” could, if successful, bolster the U.S. leadership role.
As President-Elect – Accepting Macron’s Invitation: A First Strategic Move
President-elect Trump is already acting on the global stage. French President Emmanuel Macron invited President-elect Donald Trump to Paris for the reopening of Notre-Dame Cathedral on December 7, 2024. By engaging with Macron, Trump could balance his “America First” policies with global leadership and reaffirm U.S. soft power in the EU; this visit highlights significant geopolitical shifts, especially regarding Syria and Russia’s changing stance on Bashar al-Assad’s regime and its final ‘Saigon Moment’. Trump’s comments on Syria and Ukraine marked a shift in the geopolitical landscape, as he urged the U.S. not to get involved in the escalating situation and pressured Russia to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war, particularly after the fall of Syria’s Russia-backed government. This indicated a potential change in US foreign policy towards Syria and Russia. President Macron held three-way talks with Ukrainian President Zelensky and Trump in Paris amid Kyiv’s growing concerns about the incoming U.S. administration. Trump also stressed the importance of strategic alliances to address conflicts like those in Syria, with President Bashar al-Assad’s flight to Russia marking a significant defeat, and thereby drawing attention to broader strategic interests and tensions with Türkiye and Iran despite the potential decline of Russian influence in the Middle East.
Military Conflicts in the Middle East
The conflicts between Israel and Iran-backed groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels have intensified, involving regional and global players. Iran’s support for these proxies underscores its commitment to resisting Israel and the West. In response, the United States has boosted its military presence in the region to counter Iranian aggression and aid Gaza during the ongoing crisis.
The ongoing conflicts have hindered U.S. efforts to broker normalization agreements between Israel and Gulf states like Saudi Arabia. Iran’s evolving defense strategy, including potential nuclear advancements, raises concerns about regional instability, increased tensions, and a possible arms race. Iran’s national security doctrine is shifting in response to these conflicts, focusing on alliances with Eastern powers, expanding its nuclear capabilities, and enhancing missile defense systems.
Tariff Dispute with the EU
Trump’s proposed tariffs on the EU could significantly impact the U.S.-EU trade dispute, affecting key sectors like automobiles, agriculture, and technology. This could strain transatlantic relations, disrupt global supply chains, and increase consumer costs. EU nations may retaliate, further escalating tensions and destabilizing markets.
Trade War with China
The U.S. is engaged in a prolonged trade war with China, marked by tariffs, technology export restrictions, and industry-targeted sanctions. This rivalry reflects a broader geopolitical struggle for technology and economic dominance, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, emphasizing the challenges of navigating economic and security priorities in a polarized international landscape.
The Russia-Ukraine War Amid Global Challenges
The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a significant geopolitical and military conflict that could be reshaped by changes in U.S. foreign policy under the Trump administration. Trump has emphasized his ability to resolve the conflict swiftly through his rapport with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelensky. The conflict challenges U.S. and global stability, and reduced U.S. aid may embolden Russia and pressure Ukraine to concede. Analysts predict four outcomes: a prolonged battle, a frozen conflict, or victories for Ukraine or Russia. Post-war challenges in Ukraine involve rebuilding institutions and addressing transparency due to extensive damage to infrastructure and the economy. Transparency is crucial to prevent corruption and ensure effective reconstruction efforts. These challenges intersect with U.S.-China trade disputes, which can affect resources and funding for reconstruction. Geopolitical tensions can influence international support and cooperation. Middle East instability can impact global energy markets and security dynamics, leading to fluctuations in oil prices and impacting economies worldwide, including Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts. Addressing these interconnected issues requires a coordinated and comprehensive approach. A lack of coherent strategy risks creating cascading effects, undermining U.S. influence, and emboldening adversarial alliances.
What is at stake?
With reduced global leadership, regional conflicts, and trade wars hanging in the balance, the maiden voyage of President Trump’s second administration could be the most consequential in history. The stakes have never been higher as Trump embarks on this journey to foster international cooperation, resolve conflicts, and establish fair trade agreements. This mission is not just about diplomacy; it’s about shaping the future of global relations and ensuring a stable and prosperous world for generations to come. Trump’s leadership faces complex global military and economic conflicts, necessitating precise diplomacy to balance tough stances on Iran and China and avoid global escalation. Another notable economic and political challenge is the rise of the Global South. Trump’s America First policies, including trade protectionism, could push BRICS to establish an alternative financial system. The bloc is already advocating for local currency trade and a reserve currency to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar, partly due to Western sanctions. Additionally, Trump’s hardline approach to China may heighten tensions, potentially strengthening China’s ties with its BRICS allies and enhancing its leadership within the bloc. However, tensions within BRICS Plus, such as India’s cautious stance on China’s dominance and the complexities of macroeconomic convergence required for a shared currency, may limit the bloc’s effectiveness as a unified counterweight to the United States.
The expansion of BRICS, including countries such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE, signified a pivot toward de-dollarization and enhanced South-South cooperation. Key challenges include establishing a stable reserve currency, managing internal divisions, and fostering global trade relations. The BRICS Plus Summit in Kazan, Russia, aimed to counter Western financial governance and global dominance by focusing on gradual diversification. The New Development Bank (NDB) aims to conduct 30 percent of its loans in local currencies, reducing reliance on Western financial institutions—a bold statement by Putin. Such a meeting highlights that the global leadership landscape is undergoing a seismic shift, with emerging powers like China, India, and the African continent sufficiently unified to merit inclusion, challenging the traditional dominance of the United States. While China has become a global leader in academic research, at the same time, India has experienced rapid economic growth under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, positioning itself as a forthcoming global economic power. The push for African representation on the UN Security Council reflects a broader trend of emerging powers seeking more international influence. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has urged reform of the Security Council to address this lack of representation, highlighting the need for the United States to adapt to these changes.
The MAGA philosophy and the BRICS Plus both emphasize sovereignty, economic independence, and a multipolar world order. MAGA focuses on economic self-reliance, aligning with BRICS Plus countries that aim to strengthen their economies and reduce dependence on Western financial systems. Additionally, BRICS Plus seeks alternative financial systems to lessen reliance on the dollar, reflecting a shared interest in self-reliance and sovereignty. President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to impose tariff levels of 100 percent on the BRICS if they create a new currency or challenge the dollar’s global role, aiming to protect the U.S. dollar from the rise of an alternative currency.
MAGA’s emphasis on fair trade aligns with BRICS Plus countries’ intent to seek more equitable trade agreements that reflect their national interests. Both MAGA and BRICS Plus emphasize national sovereignty and economic empowerment, offering the potential for U.S.-BRICS Plus engagement under a framework that respects each nation’s autonomy and prioritizes mutual economic benefit.
Who in the BRICS-Plus?
India, a key trade partner for the United States, and particularly its leader Prime Minister Modi, is strategically aligned with the MAGA ideology, focusing on bilateral relationships, economic nationalism, and geopolitical balance. With its democratic values and economic potential, India offers a growing market for American exports and investment opportunities in technology and manufacturing. India’s role as a counterbalance to China in the Indo-Pacific region aligns with MAGA’s goals of protecting U.S. security. India’s “Make in India” initiative emphasizes self-reliance and aligns with Trump’s economic nationalism, fostering potential joint ventures. These developments reflect a broader trend of power diffusion, leading to a multipolar world that challenges Western dominance. The U.S. should adapt by strengthening alliances, staying competitive in the global economy, and engaging with emerging powers.
A visit to India could strengthen U.S.-India relations, capitalize on India’s rapidly growing economy, and address emerging powers’ influence. It could also highlight the United States’ commitment to global partnerships and diverse regions, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning in maintaining its leadership position.
Hypothetically, if Trump focused on Africa, it would support his MAGA philosophy by enhancing U.S. influence, securing vital resources, and reducing China’s power. African countries, such as Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya, are pivotal in providing access to critical minerals and serving as a counterweight to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The U.S. and BRICS nations, rich in essential resources like oil, gas, and minerals, can enhance their geopolitical influence and economic standing by forming strong trade and investment ties with these resource-rich nations. This engagement also allows African nations to diversify their economic partnerships, reduce dependency on China, and mitigate risks associated with debt from BRI projects. Moreover, initiatives like the U.S.’s Build Back Better World (B3W) offer alternative financing for infrastructure, enabling African countries to negotiate better terms and avoid excessive reliance on Chinese loans. The strategic importance of these relationships extends beyond resources, as they also provide political leverage and foster regional stability, making Africa an increasingly significant player in global economic dynamics. Moreover, France and Germany, key U.S. allies in the EU, have different roles in Africa. Coordinating U.S. policies with the EU partners could enhance American efforts but may involve complex historical and geopolitical challenges.
What strategic measures can Trump effectively use to address ongoing regional and trade conflicts?
The key value of a meeting with Russia’s Putin would focus on four objectives: leveraging the trade war with China, renegotiating the nuclear threat, resolving the Ukraine conflict, and influencing the Middle East, particularly regarding Iran.
Putin and China’s President, Xi Jinping, have held meetings emphasizing strengthening their partnership against Western influence, focusing on economic and strategic collaboration. These meetings highlight the mutual reliance between Russia and China amid pressures like sanctions and military conflict. However, China’s dominance in renewable energy and broader economic clout gives it leverage over Russia, potentially limiting Moscow’s influence in negotiations. Putin’s meetings amid the U.S.-China trade war show strengthened ties that help counterbalance Western sanctions, though they don’t provide him direct leverage. These alliances contribute to a broader strategy to challenge U.S. dominance and propose an alternative global order.
Air Force One’s first foreign destination during the upcoming U.S. presidency will set the tone for future global affairs and demonstrate a proactive approach to reclaiming U.S. leadership. A three-landing voyage could resolve/address the global issues and emphasize the U.S. leadership. Trump’s potential value proposition for addressing regional and trade wars may hinge on a strategic engagement with Russia’s leader to capitalize on the trade war with China, renegotiate the nuclear threat, resolve the conflict in Ukraine, and assert influence in the Middle East, especially concerning Iran, Syria, and other regional nations. Therefore, a stop in the EU could facilitate mediation in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a critical geopolitical issue, while also addressing tariff disputes that have strained U.S.-EU trade relations.
A stop in Asia to visit Beijing would reinforce China’s status as a leading power in the Global South, highlighting its growing influence over developing nations. Conversely, a trip to India could strengthen trade ties as a counterbalance to the conflict with China and challenge China’s leadership. Additionally, a broader visit to Asia could impact ongoing Middle Eastern conflicts, allowing the U.S. to maintain diplomatic leverage while reducing its military presence. Resolving the trade war with China is also a priority for Trump, as ongoing tariffs have negatively affected both economies. Also, a stop in the Middle East might bring an end to one of the region’s most bitter conflicts and usher in a new era of regional peace, collaboration, and economic progress. As a result, a visit to Jerusalem, for instance, would serve as a message in favor of resolving regional disputes,
Ultimately, Trump’s MAGA agenda is tied to revitalizing the economy and reaffirming U.S. global leadership. Successful diplomatic trips could reshape international alliances and enhance the U.S.’s position as a leader of the Global North. Conversely, failure to achieve productive outcomes could diminish the U.S.’s economic and diplomatic influence amid rising competition with China.
Diplomatic attempts to resolve global crises are critical for ensuring long-term peace and equitable economic trade. Priority must be given to addressing critical concerns such as the Russia-Ukraine war, Israel’s difficult multifront conflicts, and trade disagreements with China and the EU. Success in these areas will lay the groundwork for a more stable global order, whereas failure may have far-reaching adverse consequences. As a result, focusing diplomatic resources on Asia, the EU, and the Middle East is critical for fostering a peaceful global environment. It is crucial for the White House to take a deliberate strategic approach that not only exhibits extraordinary leadership but also produces tangible results that may promote long-term change on a global scale.
This post was originally published on here
