The fountains of liberal democracy are thought to have emerged from the West, particularly during the American, European, and French Revolutions in the late 18th century. The US has been a leading advocate for democracy, pluralism, and human rights ever since. The very “champion of democracy”, under its current president, assumes that its crusader is not obliged to follow the essence of democracy, but the rest of the world should. Miserably, the ideals of modern liberal democracy—pluralism and rule of law—are likely to vanish exactly from where they had originated.

The world has been witnessing a one-man circus-drama in international politics since Donald Trump assumed the oath of office of the US presidency for the second term. The diplomatic world has been continuously reverberating due to Trump’s “draconian” policies. Trump’s first day of presidency became highly controversial both in the domestic and international spheres, while nearly 250 years of American “credibility and reputation” has been frequently questioned within 25 days of his presidency. The president floated a series of absurd policies that not only go against democratic values, multilateralism, and international alliances, but also challenge the US constitution and international law.

Trump has issued a number of executive orders that have drawn harsh criticism from both domestic and foreign quarters. The politico-diplomatic drum is being pounded by issues like “birthright citizenship,” “deportation of US immigrants,” and renaming the “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America.” Mexico asserts that the renaming of the “Gulf of Mexico” violates international law and goes against the “UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”. The federal judge temporarily blocked Trump's executive orders to “freeze all federal financial assistance,” claiming that such orders are illegal and unconstitutional. Democratic senators have fiercely opposed the proposal, citing “chaos and confusion” at all federal levels as a result of the federal funding freeze (CNN). On the other hand, Trump’s several other “diplomatic trolls,” including “Canada as the 51st state of the US,” “Acquiring Greenland,” “Controlling Panama Canal,” and lately “Gaza Clean Out” idea and then “taking ownership of Gaza”, would have a significant impact on US foreign policy.

President Trump has imprudently challenged states’ sovereign dignity, human rights, international law, the essence of diplomacy, and key liberal-democratic ideals; blame the critics. Trump has, most recently, proposed an outrageous plan not only to resettle Palestinians permanently in Egypt and Jordan but also to “take over the Gaza Strip”. Palestinians and their supporters have sharply criticized this policy as a shrewd idea of “ethnic cleansing”. Egypt and the Arab League have also strongly opposed the idea, while most of the nations in the Middle East are emphasizing a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine issue. Similarly, a number of other nations, including Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia, advocated for a two-state solution. The Biden administration backed a two-state solution as well. On the one hand, Trump is aggressively pushing the idea of permanently relocating Palestinians to third countries and “owning the Gaza Strip,” while on the other hand, he is inhumanely deporting immigrants from his country and sending some of them to Guantanamo Bay as “criminals” without consulting the concerned countries diplomatically or providing a “court trial” for the accused criminals. Rather than implementing tangible measures to resolve the Middle East conflict, as previously pledged, the president is seeding newer seeds of conflict.

How likely are the Palestinians and the concerned parties to accept this radical plan? Can Israel truly support Trump’s colonial idea of “acquiring the Gaza Strip”?

Trump loves hovering unusual ideas, big dreams, and trivial policies, which hardly get accepted widely and materialized, argue analysts. His ideas are something like floating great delusions and achieving a little after strategic negotiations. North Korea negotiations resemble one of the similar strategies in his first term, while North Korean leader Kim Jong Un reciprocated a much shrewder “Madman Theory” dictum than Trump applied. Subsequently, Trump’s North Korea policy was ruined without any fruition. The reality of the Gaza plan could not only be far worse, but a two-and-a-half-century-long American legacy would also be in peril.

Presumably, Trump hallucinates that he is the President of the world and whatever he flaunts through his “Truth Social” discretion or executive orders instantly becomes law—both domestically and internationally, and that the rest of the world will recognize this. According to the US Constitution, any bill proposed by the president must receive a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate in order to become law domestically. The Republican Party currently does not have that majority. Similarly, the president’s “unlawful” executive orders may also be challenged in court; however, each nation-state or “war criminal”, if any, is equally bound by international law, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the UN Security Council, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), among other bodies. Fascinatingly, Trump has issued an executive order to sanction the ICJ.

Trump’s initiative to enact peace in the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula during his first term deserves admiration without bias. Apparently, Trump does not want war anywhere in the world as president of the United States, which is perhaps unique in the history of the US presidential administration. Remarkably, the US did not enter into any kind of military conflicts directly or indirectly during his first presidency, while most of his predecessors or immediate successor dared it. Yet the US unfortunately witnessed several conflicts—political, social, ethnic, and democratic clashes—within the domestic sphere during the Trump era.

The US may witness a historic political upheaval to amend the constitution, potentially restricting the president’s executive authority. Trump supporters have already called for an amendment to the US Constitution that would change the presidential term limit, presumably to allow Trump to serve a third term. The possibility that the US could witness an extreme form of civil war in the future cannot be ruled out. But since the riot on Capitol Hill on 6 Jan 2020, when Trump was still president in the last days of his first term, America has already descended into civil war, blaming the Democrats. One cannot foresee that such a day will not come in the history of American foreign policy—the American army would defy the directives of its own president.

President Trump is leading the “most powerful nation on earth” with mere business tactics, instead of adopting a wider political vision and pragmatism. In every political or diplomatic deal, Trump applies business intelligence (rather than political and diplomatic intelligence) and often expects profit, just the financial yield in foreign policy. For instance, the TikTok ban and subsequent “50 percent share demand” sound more like gathering revenue than safeguarding US national security. Reducing tariffs to 10 percent from the previously announced 60 percent to China may be again a “Musk effect” of business tactics with China than advancing American national interest. Imposing 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico is something like they are sanctioned by 25 percent, while China is sanctioned just by 10 percent. In this retrospect, Trump has sanctioned 15 percent more to its historic allies and partners—Canada and Mexico—than its longstanding rival—China. There is again more business undertakings than political vision. While China, Canada and Mexico imposed respective ratios of tariffs on US imports in retaliation for Trump’s tariff policy, the close allies and key trading partners are prepared to counter-challenge the superpower.

Despite the fact that the majority of European nations are American allies and partners which have collaborated with the US to shape the global economic and democratic order, Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on the EU. After reaching a mutual agreement to curb drug-related crimes and border migration, Trump reportedly suspended tariffs on Canada and Mexico for a month. Whether Trump’s “tariff halt” or tariff attack would create a new “trade deal” or push for a “global trade war,” it is indeed a crucial concern as it would leave global repercussions. 

Trump’s insensible foreign policy and weaponization of tariffs could be costlier to the US. If Trump inertly pushed apolitical and derogatory policy on the close friends of the US, they may be compelled to turn to adversaries by forging an alliance with China. This could lead the US not only to be isolated in world politics, but the rest of the world would also go under China’s clutch. Subsequently, China would be winning the global geopolitical game.

Can America sustain its longstanding legacy of greatness and political supremacy by such old-fashioned, self-centered, and apolitical policies? How long can the US endure its might by just eyeing other countries’ resources and using threats and coercive diplomacy?

The US, perhaps, can no longer sustain its prominence and omnipotence by damaging its relations with historic key partners and allies, including the closest neighbors. This notion is also applicable to two rising powers—China and India. Realizing this very fact, perhaps, India and China have stepped up to improve their ties in recent days.

Trump is accused of instigating a tech and trade war with China since he became the US president for the first time, which pushed China to accomplish such an extraordinary technological and economic transformation within a short span of time. China is aiming not only to be a superpower but also a megapower—both in political and techno-economic spectrums.

Just a few days after President Trump announced a $500bn investment in AI infrastructures under the “Stargate” project, China’s “DeepSeek”—an open-source AI model—is said to have sent shockwaves through the American tech sphere and rattled the stock market by “sparking a turmoil in the tech market”, something like making a “coup in the AI space”. DeepSeek may not just be a “wake-up call”, as remarked by President Trump, but also could be a substantial challenge to US dominance in AI.

But at their core, both the LLM (Large Language Models) work by gathering personal data and information floated in the internet world. They even compile information from online resources such as e-books, journal articles, opinion pieces, and other works that the authors have written over the course of years of study. Ironically, neither chatbot brings up references. Thus, they must be brought into AI regulation and plagiarism frameworks to maintain data privacy and respect natural academic works.

Interestingly, once ChatGPT came into existence, the entire world was creeping behind one model, and the same was true when DeepSeek was revealed. With no “proven design,” “ethical practices,” or “reliability,” is the world prepared to embrace anything that emerges in the AI field? For instance, you will be astounded to see the different responses obtained from DeepSeek and ChatGPT when you compare their outputs using the same input (a single question). You can easily identify algorithmic bias, influence, and geopolitical flavor based on their country of origin and political beliefs. Mostly trained by “misguided strategy,” “unethical data access practices,” and political-diplomatic influence, these models have the potential to undermine not only human academic work and individual sovereign dignity, but also democratic and rational technological futures, as well as national security concerns.

The rise of DeepSeek, however, marks the beginning of the end of the US's long-standing tech hegemony. On the other hand, China’s “technological explosion,” followed by mounting tech supremacy, has led to tech bipolarity between the two superpowers, possibly igniting a “tech cold war”. This could fuel a new form of tech-world order, which could further influence social, economic, and democratic order worldwide. In essence, AI innovation should never be tech-hegemonic, syndicalist, or Western-phobic; rather, it should be a revolutionary breakthrough that could contribute for the greater good of people, society, nation, world, and humankind.

The world today, however, is far more familiar with Trump than it was during his first term. Countries are therefore expected to deal with him in the second term using thoughtful strategies.

At a time when the US, under Trump, has suspended all its aid programs around the world, countries like Nepal—that generally depend on foreign aid—need to consider “multi-strategic policies” so that they can initiate development and partnership programs with other powers.

Considering the “Trump effect in Nepal”, the two neighboring giants—China and India—may give a higher priority to Nepal and try to get involved to push their interests under newer and shrewder aid strategies. Against this backdrop, Nepal should leverage multiple choices to forge strategic partnerships with resourceful, rising economies, which could help drive development, commence innovation, invite investment, explore tourism potential, and supply domestic products and resources to different parts of the world. More importantly, Nepal needs to rely on “self-help” and explore the prominence of soft potentials by integrating people, society and nation, while putting national interest at the top.

The author is a geostrategic thinker and techno-geopolitical analyst