U.S. Alliance Strategy under Trump 2.0 and the Transformation of the U.S. Alliance System by Yuan Zheng and Chen Guiyun
Divisions within U.S. alliances will increase, allies’ strategic autonomy will grow, and the internal cohesion of the alliance system will decline as the alliance system becomes dysfunctional.
Welcome to the 40th edition of our weekly newsletter! I’m SUN Chenghao, a fellow with the Center for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University, Council Member of The Chinese Association of American Studies and a visiting scholar at the Paul Tsai China Center of Yale Law School (fall 2024).
ChinAffairsplus is a weekly newsletter that shares articles by Chinese academics on topics such as China’s foreign policy, China-U.S. relations, China-Europe relations, and more. This newsletter was co-founded by my research assistant, ZHANG Xueyu, and me.
Through carefully selected Chinese academic articles, we aim to provide you with key insights into the issues that China’s academic and strategic communities are focused on. We will highlight why each article matters and the most important takeaways. Questions and feedback can be addressed to sch0625@gmail.com
Today, we have selected an article written by Yuan Zheng and Chen Guiyun, which focuses on the U.S. alliance strategy and system in the Trump 2.0 era.
Summary
Its alliance system serves as an important pillar for the United States to sustain its global hegemony and a cornerstone of its foreign and security policies. Thus, the U.S. alliance system has internal coherence. Nevertheless, the development of the U.S. alliance system follows a cyclical pattern manifested in its scale, strength, priorities, and management, as well as the ensuing alterations in regional security structures.
From Trump’s perspective, the alliance system plays a limited role in maintaining U.S. hegemony as the United States incurs greater costs than benefits from its alliances, which has resulted in a decline in the status of alliances within U.S. national security strategy. Donning the “cost-benefit” mindset of a businessman, Trump demonstrates insufficient willingness to compensate U.S. allies for their contributions. The alliance policy of the new Trump administration may present a combination of transactional bilateral diplomacy and selective multilateralism, featuring a strong undertone of de-ideologization and de-institutionalization.
In the future, the U.S. alliance system may witness more internal conflicts, increased autonomy among U.S. allies, eroded internal cohesion and more serious dysfunctions. As a result, the integrated military-political-economic alliance system of the United States may become loosened and fragmented, and the networking process of the alliance system will notably decelerate. Although these changes signify a decline in the stability of global and regional security structures and strategies, they are conducive to facilitating a global order dominated by different partnerships and alliance systems. Moreover, the U.S. evasion of its “dual reassurance” policy and new security commitments might maintain peace in the competition between China and the United States. China should leverage the cyclical pattern of the U.S. alliance system to promote the construction of a stable regional order, reinforce regional security in its surrounding areas, and showcase the level of responsibility and commitment expected of a major country.
Why It Matters
On June 4th, the United States announced it would raise tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from all trading partners except the UK from the current 25% to 50%, affecting numerous U.S. allies and sparking dissatisfaction among the EU, Canada, and other actors. This move exemplifies Trump’s “transactional diplomacy,” a policy framework that privileges short-term economic gains over enduring alliances, often sidelining the interests of U.S. partners.
Since Trump’s second term, U.S. alliance policy has undergone drastic changes, with the U.S. alliance system experiencing significant shocks. These shifts not only impact U.S. relations with its allies but also play a pivotal role in reshaping regional and global security dynamics.
The article reflects China’s strategic community’s understanding of the evolving patterns of the U.S. alliance system and Trump’s policy style. It also provides valuable insights into the characteristics of Trump’s alliance strategy and potential future directions for the U.S. alliance system in the coming years.
Key Points
1. The internal coherence and cyclical pattern of the U.S. alliance strategy
The internal coherence of the U.S. alliance strategy
The U.S. alliance strategy has demonstrated strong coherence across successive administrations since World War II. During each presidential term, the U.S. alliance system has been similarly regarded as an important strategic asset and competitive advantage.
Pivotal hub for maintaining regional and global security architectures
The alliance system occupies an important position in the regional security architecture constructed by the U.S. The U.S. has been taking advantage of its alliance system as a means of achieving its goals of hegemonic maintenance and global deterrence.
Guarantee for forming and maintaining the regional and global order led by the U.S.
After the end of the Cold War, the U.S. alliance system has completed multiple transformations in its adaptation to threats and deterrence objectives. Overall, the current alliance system primarily targeting Russia and China achieves the alignment between “needs-strategy” and “strategy-capability” of the U.S.
Key tools for promoting American democratic values and influence
The George H. W. Bush administration proposed the concept of a “new world order” around the end of the Cold War, which regarded maintaining U.S. global dominance as the core objective and the support of allies and partners as a significant pillar, as well as a tool for propagating American ideology. Both “National Security Strategy” reports, published in 2017 and 2022 respectively, emphasized the importance of strengthening alliances, attracting new partners, and promoting liberal values.
The cyclical pattern of the U.S. alliance strategy
The transition of the U.S. alliance strategy is a phenomenon reflecting a cyclical pattern, which emerges as a result of different international security circumstances and regional balances of power.
The dynamic state of the U.S. alliance system synchronizes with that of U.S. diplomacy
The U.S. alliance system shows an obvious curve of expansion and contraction, owing to changes in American power and political will. While the U.S. alliance systems in Europe and the Asia-Pacific have followed distinct strategic rhythms since World War II, the Trump administration introduced a uniform logic of cost-benefit analysis to manage both regional alliances. Consequently, the overall U.S. alliance strategy under the first Trump administration and the Biden administration exhibited a pattern of contraction followed by expansion. The second Trump administration may revert to contraction.
The priorities of the U.S. alliance system change cyclically
U.S. alliances serve at least three basic functions: strategic coordination, security reciprocity, and the maintenance of order. With the evolution of the international system, the transformation of rivals, and the differences in the personal styles of U.S. leaders, the primary functions of U.S. alliances have also exhibited cyclical changes, primarily reflected in the differences in priority and emphasis among the three aforementioned functions.
The management modes of the U.S. alliance system change cyclically
There are two opposing alliance management modes in the U.S. One tends to adopt unilateral and coercive means, featuring a deinstitutionalization style and relative neglect of specific issues, which leads to alienation from allies -- the George W. Bush. administration and Trump’s first administration are examples. The other is the first’s converse: it insists on multilateral means and relies more on allies and international regimes.
The strength of the U.S. alliance system changes cyclically
Historically, the weakening or collapse of U.S. alliances has primarily stemmed from four scenarios: adversaries dismantling alliances through warfare, reaching strategic compromises with rivals, domestic political shifts in allied states, and the dissipation of external threats. The Trump administration introduced a fifth scenario: a dramatic shift in the foreign policy style of U.S. leaders. When alliances loosen, their deterrence of competitors diminishes. When the U.S. demonstrates greater willingness and capacity to fulfill its commitments to allies, cohesion and unity within the alliance increase.
The visibility of two logics in the regional security structures of the U.S. alliance system changes cyclically
In the Asia-Pacific region, this is primarily manifested in the ebb and flow between the logics of the “hub and spoke system” and the networking of regional security architecture. In the European alliance system, it is mainly manifested in two logics: NATO’s European and Asian orientations, which fluctuate periodically.
2. Trump’s outlook and preferences for the alliance system in his first term
The alliance system plays a limited role in maintaining hegemony
The emphasis on alliances was weakened during Trump’s first term. Trump believes in “peace through strength” rather than relying on an alliance system. Under the doctrine of ‘America First’, protectionism, and isolationism, the U.S. alliance system has played a limited role. Trump disregards the interests of allies and is even willing to sacrifice alliances for territorial expansion.
The status of alliances has declined within U.S. national security strategy
The root causes of the lessened status of alliances within U.S. national security strategy lie in the change of the aims, methods, and means of the U.S. in safeguarding its global hegemony.
Result-oriented “principled realism”
Trump views alliance maintenance as overly costly and insufficient to advance U.S. ideological influence, and thus as offering little justification for their strengthening. For Trump, the continuation of alliances is only important when it can promote practical interests.
“America First” as the keynote of foreign policy
For Trump, the core objective of alliances is to serve American interests, which means placing the interests of the U.S. above those of other countries and disregarding international obligations.
Neglect of international affairs and tendency towards neo-isolationism
In the eyes of Trump’s administration, diplomacy should take a back seat, serving domestic affairs. The cornerstone of the U.S. hegemony is seen as development and its own prosperity, instead of expansion overseas or undertaking international obligations. Thus, alliances aren’t regarded as significant.
The U.S. willingness to compensate its allies has declined under Trump’s “cost-benefit” mindset
Trump believed that allies should shoulder more responsibilities, particularly in bearing the cost of greater military spending and better serving U.S. interests. Thus, his willingness to provide compensation to allies decreased, while he demanded that they pay a share equal to that of the U.S.
3. The transformation of the U.S. alliance strategy in Trump’s second term
The possible transformation of the U.S. alliance strategy in Trump’s second term
Transactional bilateral diplomacy
The defining characteristic of the first Trump administration’s alliance strategy was its prioritization of bilateral negotiations over multilateralism, transactional diplomacy over values-based diplomacy, and contradictions between the U.S. and its allies over the U.S.’s need for allies. Trump’s transactional diplomacy is characterized by three key features: demanding that U.S. allies to take on more responsibilities, emphasizing trade equivalence, and pressuring allies to make decisions aligning with U.S. interests.
Selective multilateralism: the continuity of the networking of the alliance system
Given the institutional entrenchment of Asia-Pacific alliances, including the institutional frameworks and mini-lateral mechanisms established during the Biden administration, they are unlikely to be replaced by bilateralism in the short term.
De-ideologization and de-institutionalization
Trump emphasizes managing alliances based on practical interests rather than rigid ideologies and does not insist on linking alliance policies to maintaining the liberal international order. He downplays institutionalized relationships and advocates for the flexibility and variability of alliances.
The possible transformation of the U.S. alliance system during Trump’s second term
The enhancement of U.S. allies’ autonomy
Trump’s policies may lead to abandonment concerns among some U.S. allies, prompting them to explore enhancing strategic autonomy and adopt hedging strategies between China and the U.S.
The increasing fragmentation of the alliance system in multiple fields
The Trump administration’s perception of alliances and alliances management methods may slow down the evolution of the alliance system and disrupt the integrated alliance arrangements of the Biden administration, causing the alliance to fail to form an organic and unified whole in military, political, economic, technological, and value dimensions. The system may also exhibit a trend of segmentation and fragmentation.
The sluggishness and even recession of the alliance system’s networking process
Insights into Trump’s first-term alliance management preferences suggest that a potential second term would loosen the existing Asia-Pacific security architecture and slow the networked evolution of the alliance system. Trump administration’s Asia-Pacific alliance strategy may prioritize flexibility in the future, further impeding the ongoing networked transformation of the alliance system.
4. The future impacts of the transformation in the U.S. alliance system
The stability of security strategy and structure will decline in both regional and global contexts
Trump’s alliance strategy would first disrupt global and regional strategic stability. Should the U.S. alliance system begin to fragment, particularly through scenarios where allies diverge from U.S. policy to safeguard their own security, it would accelerate the mutual adaptation of China and the United States and even risk pushing both into a security dilemma. The U.S. alliance system would further undermine the stability of the Asia-Pacific security and political architecture, even spilling over into destabilizing the East Asian economic order.
The influence of the partnership-oriented international order may surpass that of the alliance-oriented international order
If divisions within the U.S. alliance deepen and U.S. allies’ demands become difficult to meet, Asia-Pacific allies of the U.S. may establish closer economic cooperation with China, increasingly choosing hedging strategies to maintain strategic autonomy. Thus, China’s partnership diplomacy and economic diplomacy will become more appealing. U.S. alienation of its allies may push them into the sphere of China’s partnerships, and ultimately, the influence of an international order dominated by China’s partnerships may surpass that of the order led by the U.S. alliance system.
The U.S. avoiding security commitments and “dual reassurance” to its allies may help facilitate peaceful competition between China and the U.S.
Under the trend of global strategic retrenchment, the U.S. may lack both the capacity and the political will to fulfill its security commitments to allies. To address this problem, the Trump administration may adopt a “dual reassurance” strategy, which refers to the U.S. providing a second layer of “secret reassurance”, strictly controlling the foreign policies of its allies in a private manner so as to prevent them from fomenting a regional conflict. The first layer of reassurance would be maintaining the deterrence reliability of the alliance and avoiding a decline in alliance cohesion. While such a policy may introduce more uncertainties into the Asia-Pacific security order, this strategic coordination to prevent the U.S. and its alliance system from being drawn into conflicts could create a favorable environment for China and the U.S. to maintain a peaceful competitive relationship.
Conclusion
U.S. alliance strategy and its alliance system have shown inherent coherency and certain periodic patterns since the end of the Cold War. The expansion or contraction of alliances is synchronized with U.S. strategic expansion or retrenchment in diplomacy. This ultimately leads to two models of security structures in the Asia-Pacific and European regions. In the future, divisions within U.S. alliances will increase, allies’ strategic autonomy will grow, and the internal cohesion of the alliance system will tend to decline as the alliance system becomes increasingly dysfunctional. Consequently, the integrated military, political, and economic dimensions of the U.S. alliance system may increasingly fragment, impeding further institutional networking. Although these changes imply loosening global and regional strategic stability and a decline in the solidity of regional security structures, they may also bring positive impacts to China and promote peaceful competition between China and the U.S.
About the Author
YUAN Zheng 袁征：Dr. Yuan is Deputy Director of the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), as well as Vice President and Secretary-General of the Chinese Association for American Studies.
CHEN Guiyun 陈桂芸：Chen is a doctoral student of the School of International Politics and Economics, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Class of 2023.
About the Publication
The Chinese version of this article was published in International Security Studies（《国际安全研究》）. International Security Studies is a biannual journal founded in 1983 and sponsored by the University of International Relations. It was renamed in 2013. It is China’s first academic journal featuring security studies. Guided by the study of international issues and characterized by international security research, International Security Studies covers contemporary security theories, strategies, and policy issues.
